IC-NRLF. 


D3 


• 


EXPOSITION 


OF  THE 


-CAUSES  AND   CHARACTER 


WAR 


BETWEEN  THK 


UNITED  STATES 


AND 


GREAT-BRITAI 


CONCORD,   If,  H. 
PRINTED  BIT  ISAAC  AND  WALTER  R, 

1815, 


• 

•Z 


THE  extravagant  pretensions  of  the  British  com 
missioners  at  Ghent — their  assertion  of  a  right  to  inter 
fere  with  tiie  territorial   dominion    established   at  the 
peace  oi  1783 — their  attempt  to  assert  that  the  Indians 
residing  on  our   soil  were  entitled  to    form   alliances, 
and  be  treated  as  a  civilized  people,  under  the   laws  of 
civil  society  to  which  the  Indian  tribes  are  strangers — 
the  attempt  to  cutoff  a  section  o^  our   territory,  under 
the  pretext  of  a  road  between  Canada   and   Nova  Sco- 
tia,  for  which  there  would  be  no   need  in  peace,  and 
-which  would  afford  them  an  i:;road  upon  us  during  war 
— their  occupancy  of  part  of  Massachusetts  unmolest 
ed  by  the  State  authority — their  known  designs  on  Or 
leans:  all  these  and  other  facts  known  to  the    gorern- 
mciit  of  the  United  States,left  little  prospect  of  a  peace 
in  the  early  part  of   the   present  year ;  it  is  believed 
that  the  government  was  apprized  in  the  course  of  the 
last  year,  that  peace  could  have  been  accomplished  in 
August  1814,  were  it  not  for  the  encouragement  which 
the  British  government  received   from   three  of  the 
Eastern  states  to  persevere  in  the  \rar. — In  these  views, 
the  Executive  had  determined  to  make  a  full  and  final 
appeal  to  the  American  people,  and   by  presenting  at 
one  view  to  the  country  the  causes  and  the  progress  of 
the  war,  shew  the  necessity  of  such   mighty   and  effi 
cient  preparations  for   the   campaign  of  this  year,  as 
would  assure  its  successful  and  triumphant  termination 
by  the  certain  expulsion  of  the  enemy  from  all  his  pos 
sessions  on  this  continent.     The  measure  proposed  by 
the  Secretary  of  War  for  raising    100,000  men,  was 
part  of  this  plan  of  vigorous  measures;  and  a  declar 
ation  or  exposition  was  prepared  to  go  to  the    public. 
This  able  paper  was  ready  for  publication,    when   the 
advices  of  a  peace  being  concluded  were  received.    A 
copy  of  it  has  accidentally  fallen  into  the   hands  of  the 
editor  of  the  Aurora,  and  we  think  we  can  do  no  better 
service  than  give  it  to  the  public,  as  the  best  means  of 
repelling  the  ribaldry  issued  by   those  whose  chagrin 
is  excited  to  the  greatest  extravagance  by  the  success 
ful  and  glorious  termination  of  the  war. 


AN  EXPOSITION. 


WHATEVER  may  bo  the  termination  of  (he 
negotiations  at  "Ghent,  the  dispatches  of 
the  American  commissioners,  which  have  heen 
communicated  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  the  Congress,  during  the  present  session, 
will  distinctly  unfold,  to  the  impartial  of  all  na 
tions,  the  objects  and  dispositions  of  the  parties 
to  the  present  war. 

The  United  States,  relieved  by  the  general  pa- 
ci  ft  cat  ion  of  the  treaty  of  Paris,  from  the  danger 
*f  actual  sufferance,  under  the  evils  which  had 
compelled  them  to  resort  to  arms,  have  avowed 
their  readiness  to  resume  the  relations  oT  pcs.e^ 
and  amity  with  Great-Britain,  upon  the  simple 
an?!  single  condition  of  preserving  their  territory 
and  their  sovereignty  entire  and  unimpaired. 
Their  desire  of  peace,  indeed  "  upon  terms  of  re 
ciprocity,  consistent  with  the  rights  of  both  par 
ties,  as  sovereign  and  independent  nation*/'*  has 
not,  at  any  liino,  been  Influenced  by  the  provoca 
tions  of  an  unprecedented  course  of  hostilities-; 
by  the  incitements  of  a  successful  campaign  ;  <a* 
by  the  agiiatiom  which  have  seemed  aguia  to 
threaten  the  tranquillity  of  Europe. 
^  But  the  British  government,  after  a  "  discus 
sion  with  tho  government  of  America,  fur  tho 
conciliatory  adjustment  of  the  differences  sub 
sisting  between  the  two  states,  with  an  earnest 
desire,  oa  their  part,  (as  it  was  alleged)  to 


*See  Mr.  Monroe's  letter  to  lord  Casttereogh,  dated 
January  13H. 


4  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

them  to  a  favorable  issue,  upon  principles  of  a 
perfect  reciprocity,  not  inconsistent  with  estab 
lished  maxims  of  public  law,  arid  with  the  mari 
time  rights  of  the  British  empire,"*  aud  after 
'•  expressly  disclaiming  any  intention  to  acquire 
an  increase  of  territory,'5!  have  peremptorily  de 
manded,  as  the  price  of  peace,  concessions  calcu 
lated  merely  for  their  own  aggrandizement,  and 
for  the  humiliation  of  their  adversary.  At  ono 
time,  they  proposed,  as  their  sine- qua  non*  a  stip 
ulation,  that  the  Indians,  inhabiting  the  country 
of  the  United  States,  within  the  limits  establish 
ed  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  should  be  included  as 
the  allies  of  Great  Britain  (a  party  to  that  trea 
ty)  in  the  projected  pacification  ;  and  that  definite 
boundaries  should  be  settled  for  the  Indian  terri 
tory,  upon  a  basis,  which  would  have  operated  to 
surrender,  to  a  number  of  Indians,  not,  probably, 
exceeding  a  few  thousands,  the  rights  of  sove 
reignty,  as  well  as  of  soil,  over  nearly  one  third 
of  the  territorial  dominions  of  the  United  States, 
inhabited  by  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  of 
its  eilizens4  And,  more  recently  (withdrawing, 
in  effect,  that  proposition)  they  have  offered  to 
treat  on  the  basis  of  the  uii  possidelis;  when,  by 

(*See.  lord  Cast!ereagh*5  letter  to  Mr,  Monroe,  dated 
the  4th  of  November  IS  13. 

fSee  the  American  dispatch,  dated  the  12th  August, 
1814. 

:|:See  the  American  dispatches,  datedthe  12th  and  19th 
August,  1814  ;  the  note  of  the  British  commissioners, 
dated  the  19th  of  August,  1814 ;  the  note  of  the  Ameri 
can  commissioners,  dated  the  21st  day  of  August,  1814; 
the  note  of  the  British  commissioners,  dated  the.  4th  of 
September,  1814  ;  the  note  of  the  American  commission 
ers  of  the  9th  of  September,  1814  ;  the  note  of  the  Brit 
ish  commissioners,  dated  the  19:h  of  Sept.  1814;  the 
note  of  the  American  commissioners,  dated  the  26th  of 
Sept.  1314  ;  the  note  of  the  British  coin  mission  ers,  dat 
ed  the  8th  of  Oct.  1814;  and  the  note  of  the  American 
commissioners,  of  the  18th  of  October,  1814. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  5 

the  operations  of  the.  war,  they  hadobtaioel  the 
military  possession  of 'an  important  p-irt  of  tho 
state  of  Massachusetts,  which,  it  was  known, 
eould  never  be  the  subject  of '  a  cession,  consist 
ently  with  (he  honor  and  faith  of  the  American 
government.*  Thus  it  is  obvious,  that  Great 
Britain,  neither  regarding  "  the  principles  of  a 
perfect  reciprocity,"  nor  the  rule  of  her  own 
practise  and  professions,  has  indulged  pretension?, 
which  eould  only  be  heard,  in  order  to  be  rejec 
ted.  The  alternative,  either  vindictively  to  pro 
tract  the  war,  or  honorably  to  end  it,  lias  been 
fairly  given  to  her  option  ;  but  she  wants  tho 
magnanimity  to  decide,  while  her  apprehensions 
aro  awakened,  for  the  result  of  the  congress  at 
Vienna,  and  her  hopes  are  flattered,  by  tlio 
schemes  of  conquest  in  America.. 

There  are  periods  in  the  transactions  of  every 
country,  as  well  as  in  the  life  of  every  individual, 
when  self-examination  becomes  a  duty  of  (ho 
highest  moral  obligation  ;  when  the  government 
of  a  free  people,  driven  from  the  path  of  peace, 
and  baffled  in  every  effort  to  regain  it,  may  resort, 
for  consolation,  to  the  conscious  rectitude  of  5ts 
measures,  and  when  an  appeal  to  mankind  foun 
ded  upon  truth  and  justice,  cannot  fail  to  engage 
those  sympathies,  by  which  even  nations  arc  led 
to  participate  in  the  fame  and  fortunes  of  each 
other. — The  United  States,  under  these  impres 
sions,  are  neither  insensible  to  the  advantages, 
nor  to  the  duties  of  their  peculiar  situation. 
They  have  bat  recently,  as  it  were,  established 
their  Independence  ;  and  tho  volume  of  their  na 
tional  history  lies  open,  at  a  glance,  to  every  eye. 

*See  the  note  of  the  British  commissioners,  dated  the 
21st  ot  October,  1814;  the  note  ef  the  American  com 
missioners,  dated  the  24th  of  October,  1814;  and  the 
note  of  the  Briiish  commissioners,  dated  the  31st  of  Oc 
tober,  1814, 


6  AMERICAN  EXPOSE,. 

The  policy  of  their  government,  therefore, 
ever  it  has  been,in  their  foreign  as  well  as  in  thek' 
domestic  relations,  it  is  impossible  to  conceal-; 
and  it  must  be  difficult  to  mistake.  If  the  asser 
tion,  that  it  has  been  made  a  policy  to  preserve 
peace  and  amity  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world, 
be  doubted,  the  proofs  are  at  hand.  If  tjhe  asser 
tion,  that  it  lias  beeu  a  policy  to.inaiiitain  tho 
rights  of  the  United  States,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  to  respect  the  rights  of  every  other  nation, 
be  doubted,  the  proofs  will  be  found  on  record, 
even  in  the  archives  of  England  and  of  France* 
And  if,  in  fine,  the  assertion,  that  it  has  been 
made  a  policy  by  all  honorable  means,  toeultivate 
>?5th  Great-Britain,  those  sentiments  of  mutual 
good  will,  which  naturally  belong  to  nations  con 
nected  by  the  lies  of  a  common  aneestry,  an  iden 
tity  of  language,  and  a  similarity  of  manners,  be 
doubted,  the  proofs  will  be  found  in  that  patient 
forbearance,  under  the  pressure  of  aeeunuilaling 
wrongs,  which  marks  the  period  of  almost  thirty 
years,  that  elapsed  between  the  peace  of  1783, 
and  the  rupture  of  1S12. 

The  United  States  had  just  recovered,  under 
the  auspices  of  their  present  constitution,  from 
the  debility  which  their  revolutionary  struggle 
had  produced,  when  the  convulsive  movements  of 
France  exeited  throughout  the  civilized  world  the 
mingled  sensations  of  hope  and  fear — of  admira 
tion  and  alarm.  The  interest  which  those  move 
ments,  would  in  themselves,  have  excited,  was  in 
calculably  increased,  however,  as  soon  as  Great 
Britain  bef  ame  a  party  to  the  first  memorable 
coalition  against  France,  and  assumed  the  char 
acter  of  a  belligerent  power,  for  it  was  obvious, 
that  the  difference  ©f  the  scene  would  no  longer 
exempt  the  United  States  from  the  influence,  and 
the  evils  of  the  European  conflict.  On  the  one 
hand,  their  government  was  connected  with 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  7 

France,  by  treaties  of  alliance  am!  commerce; 
and  the  services  which  that  nation  had  rendered 
to  the  cause  of  American  independence,  had  mad^ 
such  impressions  upon  the  public  raind,  as  no  vir 
tuous  statesmen  could  rigidly  condemn,  and  thr; 
most  rigorous  statenrien  would  have  sought  in  vai» 
to  efface.  On  the  other  hand,  Great  Britain 
leaving  the  treaty  of  1783  unexecuted,  forcibly 
retained  the  American  posts  upon  the  northern 
frontier  ;  and,  slighting  every  overture  to  place 
the  diplomatic  and  commercial  relations  of  the 
two  countries,  upon  a  fair  and  friendly  founda 
tion,  #  seemed  to  contemplate  the  success  of  the 
American  revolution,  in  a  spirit  of  unextinguish- 
able  animosity.  ,  tier  voice  had  indeed  been  heard 
from  Quebec  #ed  Montreal,  instigating  the  sava 
ges  to  war.f  Her  invisible  arm  was  feit,  in  tha 
defeat  of  General  Harmer^:  and  General  St.  Clair.§ 
and  even  the  victory  of  General  Wayne||  was 
achieved  in  the  presence  of  a  fort  which  she  had 
erected,  far  within  the  territorial  boundaries  of 
the  United  States,  to  stimulate  and  countenance 
the  barbarities  of  the  Indian  warrior,  fl  Yet  the 
American  government,  neither  yielding  to  popu 
lar  feeling,  nor  acting  upon  the  impulse  of  national 
resentment,  hastened  to  adopt  the  policy  of  a 
strict  and  steady  neutrality;  and  solemnly  an 
nounced  that  poliey  to  the  citizens  at  home,  and 
to  the  nations  abroad,  by  the  proclamation  of  the 
of  April,  1793.  —  Whatever  may  have  been  the 


*See  Mr.  Adams'  correspondence. 

f  See  the  Speeches  of  Lord  Dorchester. 

tOn  the  A?aters  of  the  Miami  of  the  Lake,  on  the 
2  1st  Oct.  1790. 

§At  Fort  Recovery,  on  the  4th  November  1791, 

HOnthe  Miami  of  the  Lakes,  in  August,  17*94. 

11  See  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Randolph, 
the  American  secretary  of  State,  and  Mr.  Hammond., 
the  British  plenipotentiary,  dated  Ma^  and  June,  1794-, 


s  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

dials  of  its  pride,  and  of  its  fortitude  ;  whatever 
way  have  been  (lie  imputations  upon  its  fidelity, 
and  its  honor,  it  will  be  demonstrated  in  the  se 
quel,  that  the  American  government,  throughout 
the  European  contest,  and  amidst  all  the  changes 
of  the  objects,  and  the  parties  that  have  been  in 
volved  in  that  contest,  have  inflexibly  adhered  to 
the  principles  which  were  thus  authoritively  es 
tablished,  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  United 
States. 

It  was  reasonable  to  expect  that  a  proclama 
tion  of  neutrality,  issued  under  the  circumstances 
which  have  been  described,  would  command  the 
confidence  and  respect  of  Great  Britain,  however 
offensive  it  might  prove  to  France,  as  contraven 
ing  essentially,  the  exposition  which  she  was  anx 
ious  to  bestow  on  the  treaties  of  commerce  and 
alliance.  But  experience  has  shown,  that  the 
confidence  and  respect  of  Great  Britain  are  not  to 
be  acquired,  by  such  acts  of  impartiality  and  in 
dependence.  Under  every  administration  of  the 
American  government,  ihe  experiment  has  been 
matle,  and  the  experiment  has  been  equally  un 
successful  :  for  it  was  not  more  effectually  ascer 
tained  in  (he  year  1812,  than  at  antecedent  periods, 
that  an  exemption  from  the  maritime  usurpation, 
and  the  commercial  monopoly,  of  Great  Britain, 
eauld  only  be  obtained  upon  the  condition  of  be 
coming  an  associate,  in  her  enmities  and  her 
wars.  While  the  proclamation  of  neutrality  was 
still  in  the  view  of  the  British  minister,  an  order 
of  the  8th  of  June,  1793,  issued  from  the  cabinet, 
by  virtue  of  which,  *•  all  vessels  loaded  wholly,  or 
in  part,  with  corn,  flour,  or  meal,  bound  to  any 
port  in  France,  or  any  port  occupied  by  Ihe  arm 
ies  ofFranee,"  were  required  to  be  carried,  forc 
ibly  into  England  ;  and  the  cargoes  were  cither 
to  b;1  sold  there,  or  security  was  to  be  given,  that 
they  should  be  sold  in  the  ports  of  a  country  only  irv 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE  ]  9 

amity  with  his, Britannic  majesty.*  -The -moral 
character  of  an  avowed  design,  to  inflict  famine 
upon  the  whole  of  the  French  people,  was,  at  that 
ticne  properly  estimated  throughout  the  civilized 
•world;  and  so  glaring  an  infraction  of  neutral 
rights,  as  the  British  order  was  calculated  to  pro 
duce,  did  not  escape  the  severities  of  diplomatic 
animadversion  and  remonstrance.— But  this  ag 
gression  was  soon  followed  by  another  of  a  mere 
hostile  cast.  In  the  war  of  1756,  Great  Britain 
had  endeavored  to  establish  the  rule,  that  neutrai 
nations  were  not  entitled  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
a  trade  with  the  colonies  of  a  belligerent  power* 
from  which,  in  the  season  of  peace,  they  were 
excluded  by  the  parent  state. — The  rule  stands 
•without  positive  support  from  any  general  au 
thority  on  public  law.  If  it  be  (rue,  that  some 
treaties  contain  stipulations,  by  which  the  parties 
expressly  exclude  each  other  from  the  commerce 
of  their  respective  colonies  :  and  if  it  be  true,  that 
the  ordinances  of  a  particular  state  often  provide 
for  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  its  colonial  com 
merce  ;  still  Great  Britain  cannot  be  authorised 
to  deduce  the  rule  of  the  war  of  1756,  by  impli 
cation,  from  such  treaties  and  such  ordinances, 
•while  it  is  npt  true,  that  the  rule  forms  a  part  of 
the  law  of  nations  $  nor  that  it  has  been  adopted 
by  any  other  government  5  nor  that  even  Great 
Britain  herself  has  uniformly  practised  upon  the. 
rule  ;  since  its  application  was  unknown  from  the 
war  of  1756,  until  the  French  war  of  1792,  -in 
cluding  the  entire  period  of  the  American  w^r  — - 
Let  it  be,  ai'gumenlafively  allowed,  however,  that 
CjU'vat  Britain  possessed  the  righi,  as  well  as  the 
po>ver^  to  revive  and  enforce  the  rule  ;  yet,  the 
time  and  the  manner  of  exercising  the  power, 

•*  See  the  order  of  the  8th  of  June,  1793,  and  the  re- 
monstrance  of  the  American  oF.gevernment* 


10  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

would  afford  ample  cause  fur  reproach.  The  eit- 
izens  of  the  United  States  had  openly  engaged  in 
an  extensive  trade  with  the  French  islands,  in  the 
West  Indies,  ignorant  of  the  alleged  existence  of 
the  rule  of  the  war  of  1756,  or  unanpvised  of  any 
intention  to  call  it  into  action,  when  the  order  of 
the  6th  of  November,  1793,  was  silently  circula 
ted  among  the  iiritish  cruizers,  consigning  to  le 
gal  adjudication,  *•  all  vessels  louden  with  goods, 
the  produce  of  any  colony  of  France,  OF  carrying 
provisions  or  supplies,  for  the  use  of  *?.ny  such  col 
ony.'5*  A  great  portion  of  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States  was  thus  annihilated  at  a  blow  ;  the 
amicable  dispositions  of  the  government  were 
again  disregarded  and  contemned,  the  sensibility 
of  tne  nation  was  excited  to  a  high  degree  of  re 
sentment,  by  the  apparent  treachery  of  the  Brit 
ish  order;  and  a  recourse  to  reprisals,  or  to  war, 
for  indemnity  and  redress,  seemed  to  he  unavoid 
able.  But  the  love  of  justice  had  established  the 
law  of  neutrality  ;  and  the  love  of  peace  taught  u 
lesson  of  forbearance.  The  American  govern 
ment,  therefore,  rising  superior  to  the  provoca 
tions  and  the  passions  of  the  day,  instituted  a  spec- 
ittl  mission,  to  represent  at  the  court  of  L*on;lo&, 
the  injuries  and  the  indignities  which  it  had  suf 
fered.  •<  to  vindicate  its  rights  with  firmness,  and 
to  cultivate  peace  with  sincerity. ??j  The  imme 
diate  result  of  this  mission,  was  a  treaty  of  amity, 
commerce,  and  navigation,  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  which  was  signed  by 
the  negotiators  on  the  19»h  of  November,  179i<, 
and  finally  ratified,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate, 
in  the  year  1795.  But  both  the  missioa  and  its 

*See  the  British  orders  0f  the  6th  of  Nov.  1793. 

tSee  the  president's  message  to  the  senate,  of  the 
16th  of  April,  1794,  nominating  Mr.  Jay  as  envoy 
extraordinary  to  his  Britannic  majesty, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  11 

result,  serve,  also,  to  display  the  independence 
and  the  impartiality  of  tiieAinerican  government, 
in  asserting  its  rights  and  performing  its  duties, 
equally  unawed  and  unbiassed  by  the  instruments 
of  Ijelligerent  power,  or  persuasion. 

On  the  foundation  of  this  treaty  the  United 
States,  in  a  pure  spirit  of  good  faith  and  confi 
dence,  raised  the  hope  and  the  expectation,  that 
the  maritime  usurpations  of  Great  Britain  would 
eease  to  annoy  them  ;  that  all  doubtful  claims  of 
jurisdiction  would  be  suspended  ;  and  that  even 
the  exercise  of  an  incontestable  right  would  be 
so  modified,  as  to  present  neither  insult,  nor  out 
rage,  nor  inconvenience,  to  their  flag,  or  to  their 
commerce.  But  the  hope  and  the  expectation  of 
the  United  States  have  been  fatally  disappointed. 
Some  relaxation  in  the  rigor,  without  any  altera 
tion  in  the  principle,  of  the  order  in  council  of 
the  6th  of  November,  1793,  was  introduced  by  the 
subsequent  orders  of  the  8th  of  Jan.  1794,  and  the 
25th  Jan.  179$  :  but  from  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  of  1794,  until  the  short  respite  afforded  by 
the  treaty  of  Amiens,  in  1802,  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States  continued  <o  be  the  prey  of  British 
eruizers  anil  privateers,  under  the  adjudicating 
patronage  of  the  British  tribunals.—- Another 
grievance,  however,  assumed  at  this  epoch,  a 
form  and  magnitude,  which  cast  a  shade  over  the 
social  happiness,  as  well  r.s  the  political  indepen 
dence  of -the  nation.  The  merchant  vessels  of 
the  United  States  were  arrested  on  the  high  seas, 
while  in  the  prosecution  of  distant  voyages  ;  con 
siderable  numbers, (jf  their  crews  were  impressed 
into  the  naval  service  of  Great  Britain  \  the 
commercial  adventures  of  the  owners  were  of 
ten,  consequently,  defeated  ;  and  the  loss  of  pro 
perty,  the  embarrassments  of  trade  and  naviga- 
gation,  and  the  scene  of  domestic  affliction,  be* 
intolerable*  This  grievance  (which  consti* 


13  *  AMERICAN 

tuies  an  important  surviving  cause  of  the  Ameri 
can  declaration  of  war)  Was  early,  and  has  been 
incessantly,  urged  upon  the  attention  of  the  Brit 
ish  government.  Even  in  the  year  1792,  they 
were  told  of  »<  the  irritation  that  it  had  excited^ 
and  of  the  difficulty  of  avoiding  to  make  imme 
diate  reprisals  on  their  seamen  in  the  United 
States."*  They  were  told  *«  that  so  many  instan 
ces  of  the  kind  had  happened,  that  it  was  quite 
necessary  that  Ihey  should  explain  themselves  on 
the  subject,  aed  be  led  to  disavow  and  punish 
such  violence,  whit*.h  had  never  been  experien 
ced  from  any  otlm-  nation/'j  And  they  were 
told  of  "  the  inconvenience  of  such  conduct,  and 
of  the  impossibility  of  letting  il  go  on,  so  that 
the  British  ministry  should  be  made  sensible  of 
the  necessity  of  punishing  the  past,  and  prevent 
ing  the  future.5'^ — But  after  the  treaty  of  amity, 
commerce,  and  navigation,  had  been  ratified,  the 
nature  and  the  extent  of  the  grievance  became 
still  more  manifest  ;  and  it  was  clearly  and  firm 
ly  presented  to  the  view  of  the  British  government, 
as  leading  unavoidably  to  discord  and  war  between 
the  two  nations.  They  were  told,  "  that  unless 
they  would  come  to  some  accommodation  which 
might  ensure  the  American  seamen  against  this 
oppression,  measures  would  be  taken  to  cause  the 
inconvenience  to  be  equally  felt  on  both  sides."§ 
They  were  told, "  that  the  impressment  of  A- 
merican  citizens,  to  serve  on  board  of  British 

*See  the  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  secretary  of  state* 
to  Mr.  Pinkney,  minister  at  London,  dated  1 1th  of 
June,  1792, 

f  See  the  letter  from  the  san>e  to  the  same,  dated  the 
12th  of  October,  1792. 

tSee  the  letter  froni  the  saine  to  the  same,  dated 
the  6th  of  November,  179&. 

§See  the  letter  from  Mr.  Pinkney*  Minister  at  Lon 
don,  to  the  secretary  of  state,  dated  13th  March,  1793. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  U. 

armed  vessels,  was  not  only  an  injury  to  the  wi- 
foi'tunate  individuals,  but  it  iiaturaliy  excited 
certain  emotions  in  the  breasts  of  the  nation  to 
whom  they  belong,  and  the  jast  and  humane  of 
every  country  ;  and  that  an  expectation  was  in 
dulged  that  orders  would  be  given,  that  the  A- 
mericuns  so  circumstanced,  should  be  im mediate 
ly  liberated,  and  that  the  British  oilers  should* 
in  future,  abstain  front  similar  violences.*'* 
They  were  told,  •*  that  the  subject  >vas  of  much 
greater  importance  than  bad  been  supposed  :  and 
that,  instead  of  a  few,  and  those  in  many  instan 
ces  equivocal  cases,  the  American  minister  at  the 
court  of  London  had,  in  nine  months  (part  of 
the  years  1786  and  1797)  made  applications  for 
the  discharge  of  two  hundred  and  seventy-one 
seamen  who  had,  in  most  cases,  exhibited  such 
evidence,  as  to  satisfy  him  that  they  were  real  A- 
merieans,forced  into  theBritish  service,and  perse 
vering,  generally,  in  refusing  pay  and  bounty.**! 
They  were  told,  "  that  if  the  British  government 
had  any  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  United  States* 
any  respect  for  the  nation,  and  placed  any  vfclue 
on  their  friendship,  it  would  facilitate  the  means 
of  relieving  their  oppressed  citizens/*:};  They 
were  told  •*  that  the  British  naval  officers  often 
impressed  Swedes,  Danes  and  other  foreigners, 
from  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  ;  that  they 
might,  with  as  much  reason,  rob  American  ves 
sels  of  the  property  or  merchandize  of  Swedes, 
Danes  and  Portuguese,  as  seize  and  detain  in 

*See  the  note  of  Mr.  Jay,  envoy    extraordinary,  to 
Lord  Grenville,    dated  the 'soth  July,  1794. 

fSee  the  letter  of  Mr.  King,  minister  at  London,  to 
the  secretary  of  State,  dated  the  13th  of  April,  1797. 

tSee  the    letter    froni   Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of 
State,  to  Mr.  King,  minister  at  London,  dated  the  10th 
of  September,  1796. 
B 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

h'  service,  the  subjects  of  those  nations  found 
on  hoard  of  American  vessels  ;  arnl  that  <he  pivs- 
Hent  uas  extremely  anxious  to  have  this  business 
*>!'  impressing  placed  on  a  reasonable,  footing.'51* 
And  they  were-  told,  «  that  the  impressment  of 
American  seamen  was  an  injury  of  very  serious 
magnitude,  which  deeply  affected  the  feelings  and 
honor  of  the  nation  ;  that  no  right  had  been  as 
serted  to  impress  tho  natives  of  America  ;  yef, 
that  they  were  impressed  ;  they  were  dragged  on 
board  British  ships  of  war,  with  the  evidence  of 
citizenship  in  their  hands,  and  forced  by  violence 
fhere  to  serve,  until  conclusive  testimonials  of 
their  birth  could  be  obtained  ;  that  many  must 
perish  unrelieved,  and  all  were  detained  a  consid 
erable  time  in  lawless  and  injurious  confinement  ; 
that  the  continuance  of  the  practice  must  inevit 
ably  produce  discord  between  two  nations  which 
ought  to  be  friends  of  each  other  $  and  that  it 
^vas  more  advisable  to  desist  from,  and  to  take  ef 
fectual  measures  to  prevent  an  acknowledged 
\vrong,  than  by  persevering  in  that  wrong,  to  ex 
cite  against  themselves  the  welk founded  resent 
ments  of  America,  and  force  the  government  into 
measures,  which  may  very  possibly  terminate  in 
anjopen  rupture. 5?f 

Such  were  the  feelings  and  the  sentiments  of 
1be  American  government,  under  every  change  of 
Its  administration,  HI  relation  to  the  British  prac 
tice  of  impressment  ;  and  such  the  remonstran 
ces  addressed  to  the  justice  of  Great-Britain. 
It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  this  cause,  indepen 
dent  of  every  other,  has  been  uniformly  deemed 
a  just  and  certain  cause  of  war  ;  yet  the  charac- 

*See  the  letter  from  the  same  to  the  same,  dated  the 
26th  of  October,  1796. 

}See  the  letter  from  Mr.  Marshall,  secretary  of 
State,  (now  chief-justice  of  the  United  States)  to  Mr. 
lung,  minister  at  London,  dated  the  20th  Sept.  1800. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  15 

teristic  policy  of  the  United  States  still  prevailed  : 
remonstrance  was  only  succeeded  by  negoeiatiofi  ; 
and  every  assertion  of  American  rights,  was  ac 
companied  \vitli  an  overture,  to  secure,  in  any 
practicable  form,  the  rights  of  Great  Britain.* 
Time  seemed,  however,  to  rentier  it  more  difiicuk 
to  ascertain  and  fix  the  standard  of  the  British 
rights,  according  to  the  succession  of  th?  British 
claims.  The  right  of  entering  and  searching  an 
American  merchant  ship,  for  the  purpose,  of  im 
pressment,  \vas,  for  a  while,  confined  to  the  case 
of  British  deserters ;  and  even  so  late  as  tj/e 
month  of  February,  1800,  the  minister  of  his 
Britannic. majesty,  then  at  Philadelphia,  urged 
the  American  government  "  to  take  into  consid 
eration,  as  the  only  means  of  drying  up  every 
source  of  complaint,  and  irritation,  upon  that 
head,  a  proposal  which  he  had  made  two  years 
before,  in  the  name  of  his  majesty's  government, 
for  the  reciprocal  restitution  of  deserters. ''f  But 
this  project  of  a  treaty  was  then  deemed  inadmis 
sible,  by  the  president  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  chief  officers  of  the  executive  departments  of 
the  government,  whom  he  consulted,  for  the  same 
reason,  specifically,  which,  at  a  subsequent  perl- 
ed,  inducted  the  president  of  tbe  United  States, 
to  withhold  his  approbation  from  the  treaty  ne- 
gociated  by  the  American  ministers  at  London,  in 
the  year  1806;  namely,  "that  it  did  not  suffi 
ciently  provide  against  the  impressment  of  A- 

*See,  particularly,  Mr.  King's  propositions  to  lord 
Grenville,  and  lord  Hawkesbury,  of  the  1  3th  April, 
1797,  the  15th  of  March,  1799,  the  25tn  of  February, 
1801,  and  in  July,  1803. 

fSee  Mr.  Liston's  note  to  Mr.  Pickering,  the  secre 
tary  of  state,  dated  the  4th  of  February,  1800. 


16  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

jneriean  seamen  ;"#  and  "  that  it  is  better  to  have 
no  article,  and  to  meet  the  consequences,  than 
not  to  enumerate  merchant  vessels  on  the  high 
seas,  among  the  things  not  to  be  forcibly  entered 
In  seareh  o£  deserters/'!  But  the  British  claim, 
expanding  with  singular  elasticity,  was  soon  found 
to  include  a  right  to  enter  American  vessels  on 
the  high  seas,  in  order  to  search  for  and  seize  all 
British  seamen  ;  it  next  embraced  the  case  of  ev 
ery  British  subject ;  and  finally,  in  its  practical 
enforcement,  it  has  been  extended  to  every  mari 
ner,  who  could  not.  prove,  upon  the  spot,  that  he 
was  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

While  the  nature  of  (he  British  claim  was  thus 
ambiguous  and  fluctuating,  the  principle  to  which 
it  was  referred,  for  justification  and  support,  ap 
peared  to  be,  at  once,  arbitrary  and  illusory.  It 
was  not  recorded  in  any  positive  code  of  the  law 
of  nations  ;  it  was  not  displayed  in  the  elciuciitsi- 
ry  works  of  (he  civilian  ;  nor  had  it  ever  hem 
exemplified  in  the  maritime  usages  of  any  other 
country,  i&  any  other  age.  In  truth,  it  was  the 
offspring  of  tke  ftiunteiftfil  law  of  Great  Britain 
r;lc;j«  ;  equally  operative  in  a  time  of  peace,  and 
in  a  time  of  war  $  and,  undrr  all  ei  pen  m  stances, 
inflicting  a  coercive  jurisdiction,  upon  the  com* 
pierce  and  navigation  of  t lie  world. 

For  the   legitimate   lights    of  the  belligerent 

powers,  the  Ilniled  States  had  felt  and  evinced  \\ 

sincere  and    open  respect.     Although   they   had 

'marked  a  diversity  of  doctrine  among   the   most 

*Sev*  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of 
state,  enclosing-  the  plan  of  a  treaty,  dated  the  3d  of 
May,  1800,  and  the  opinion  of  Mr  Wolcott,  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  dated  the  Uth  April,  1800. 

fSee  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Stoddept,  secretary  of  th« 
Biivv,  dated  -the  23d  April,  1800,  and  the  opinions  of 
Mr.  Lee,  attorney-general,  dated  the  26th  of  Februa 
ry,  and  the  30th  April,  1800. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  17 

celebrated  jurists,  upon  many  of  the  litigated 
points  oFthe  law  of  war  ;  although  they  had  for 
merly  espoused,  with  the  example  of  the  most 
.powerful  government  of  Kurope,  the  principles 
of  the  armed  neutrality,  which  were  established 
in  the  year  1780,  upon  the  hasis  of  the  memora 
ble  declaration  of  the  empress  of  all  the  Bussias  ; 
and  although  the  principles  of  that  declaration 
have  heen  incorporated  into  all  their  public*  trea 
ties,  exeept  in  the  instar.ee  of  tiie  treaty  of  1794$ 
yet.  the  United  States,  still  faithful  to  the  pacific 
and  impartial  policy  which  they  professed,  did 
not  hesitate,  even  at  the  commencement  of  the 
French  revolutionary  war,  to  accept  and  allow 
the  exposition  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  it  was 
then  maintained  by  Great  Britain  ;  and,  conse 
quently,  to  admit,  upon  a  much  contested  point, 
that  the  properly  of  her  enemy,  in  their  vessels, 
might  be  law  Fully  captured  as  priz<>  of  war.*  It 
was,  aiso,  freely  admitted,  that  a  belligerent  pow 
er  had  a  right  with  proper  cautions,  to  enter* and 
search  American  vessels,  for  the  goods  of  an  ene 
my,  and  for  articles  contraband  of  war  ;  that,  if 
upon  a  search  such  goods  or  articles  were  found, 
or  if,  in  the  course  of  the  search,  persons  in  he 
military  service  of  the  enemy  were  discovered,  a 
belligerent  hud  a  right  of  transshipment  and  re 
moval  ,-  that  a  belligerent  had  a  right,  in  doubt 
ful  cases,  to  carry  American  vessels  to  a  conven 
ient  station,  for  further  examination  ;  and  that  a 
belligerent  had  a  right  to  exclude  American  ves 
sels  from  ports  and  places,  under  the  blockade  of 
an  adequate  naval  force.  These  rights  the  law 

*Sse  the  •correspondence  of  the  year  1792,  between 
Mr.  Jefferson,  secretary  of  State,  and  the  ministers  of 
Great  Britain  and  France.  See  also  Mr.  Jefferson's 
ktterto  the  American  minister  at  Paris,  of  the  same 
year,  requesting  the  recall  of  Mr,  Genet, 


13  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

of  nations  might,  reasonably,  be  deemed  to  sanr- 
lion  ;  nor  has  a  fair  exercise  of  the  powers  neces 
sary  for  the  enjoyment  of  these  rights,  been,  at 
<uiy  time,  conti  overicd,  or  opposed,'  by  the  Amer 
ican  government. 

But  it  must  be  again  remarked,  that  the  claim 
of  Great  Britain  was  not  to  be  satisfied,  by  the 
most  ample  and  explicit  recognition  of  the  law  of 
war  ;  for,  the  l^\v  of  war  treats  only  of  the  rela 
tions  of  a  belligerent  to  his  enemy,  while  the  claim 
of  Great  Britain  embraced,  also,  the  relations  be 
tween  a  sovereign  and  his  subjects*  It  was  said, 
that  every  British  subject  was  bound  by  a  tie  of 
allegiance  to  his  sovereign,  which  no  lapse  of  time, 
no  change  of  place,  no  exigency  of  life,  could 
possibly  weaken  or  .dissolve.  It  was  said,  that 
the  British  sovereign  was  entitled,  at  all  periods, 
and  on  all  occasions,  to  the  services  of  his  sub 
jects.  Arid  it  was  said,  that  the  British  vessels 
of  war  upon  the  high  seas,  might  lawfully  and 
forcibly  enter  the  merchant  vessels  of  every  oth 
er  nation  (fop  the  theory  of  these  pretensions  is 
not  limited  to  the  case  of  the  United  States,  al 
though  that  case  has  been,  almost  exclusively, 
affected  by  their  practical  operation)  for  the  pur 
pose  of  discovering  and  impressing  British  sub 
jects.*  The  United  States  presume  not  to  dis- 
euss  the  forms,  or  the  principles,  of  the  govern 
ments  established  in  other  countries.  Enjoying 
the  right  and  the  blessing  of  self-government,  tiicy 
leave,"  implicitly,  to  every  foreign  nation,  the 
choice  of  its  social  and  political  institutions.  But, 
whatever  may  be  the  form,  or  the  principle,  of 
government,  it  is  an  universal  axiom  of  public 
SfitWi  among  sovereign  and  independent  states,  that 
*very  nation  is  bound  so  to  use  and  enjoy  its 

*See  the  British  declaration  of  the  10th  of 
Itl3. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  f* 

own  rights,  as  not  to  injure,  or  destroy,  the  rights 
of  any  other  option.  Say  then,  that  the  tie  of 
wUegiaace  cannot  be  severed,  or  relaxed,  as  re 
spects  the  sovereign  and  the  subject  ;  and  say, 
that  the  sovereign  is,  at  all  times,  entitled  to  tiu? 
services  of  the  subject;  still,  there  is  nothing 
gained,  in  support  of  the  British  .claim,  unless  it 
can,  also,  be  said,  that  the  British  sovereign  has  a 
right  toseekasd  seize  his  subject,  while  actually 
within  the  dominion,  or  under  the  special  protec 
tion,  of  another  sovereign  state.  Hi  is  will  not, 
surely,  be  denominated  a  process  of  the  law  of 
nations,  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  rights  of 
Avar  :  and  if  it  shall  be  tolerated  as  a  process  of 
the  municipal  law  of  Great  B  itain,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  enforcing  the  right  of  the  sovereign  to  the 
service  of  his  subjects,  there  is  no  .principle  of 
t?is(<;'imination,  which  can  prevent  its  being  em 
ployed  in  peace,  or  in  war,  with  all  the  attendant 
abuses  fcf  force  and  fraud,  to  justify  the  seizure 
of  British  subjects  for  crimes,  or  far  debts,  ami 
the  seizure  of  British  property,  for  any  cause 
that  shall  be  arbitrarily  assigned.  The  introduc 
tion  of  these  degrading  novelties,  iruo  the  marl-' 
time  code  of  nations*  it  has  been  tLe  arduous 
task  of  the  American  government,  in  the  onset, 
to  oppose  ;  and  it  rests  with  all  other  govern 
ments  to  decide,  hew  far  their  honor  and  their 
interests  must  be  eventually  implicated,  by  a  tac 
it  acquiescence,  in  the  successive  usurpations  of 
the  British  flag.  If  the  right  claimed  by  Great- 
Britain  be,  indeed,  common  to  all  $ro\ernmeiit5>- 
the  ocean  will  exhibit,  in  addition  to  its  many  oth 
er  perils,  a  scene  of  everlasting  strife  and  conten 
tion  $  but  what  other  government  has  ever  claim 
ed  or  exercised  the  right  ?  If  the  right  shall  be 
exclusively  established  as  a  trophy  of  the  naval 
superiority  of  Great-Britain,  the  ocean,  which 
Las  been  sometimes  emphatically  denominated* 


30  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

«•'  the  high-way  of  nations,"  will  be  identified  in. 
the  occupancy  and  use,  with  the  dominions  <>f  the 
British  crown ;  and  every  other  nation  must  en 
joy  (he  liberty  of  passage,  upon  the  payment  of 
a  tribute  for  the  indulgence  of  a  licence:  but 
what  nation  is  prepared  for  this  sacrifice  of  its 
honor  and  its  interests  ?  And  if,  after  all,  the 
right  he  now  asserted  (as  experience  too  plainly 
indicates)  for  the  purpose  of  imposing  on  the  IJ- 
nited  States,  to  accommodate  the  British  mari 
time  policy,  a  new  and  odious  limitation  of  the 
sovereignly  and  independence,  which  were  ac 
quired  by  the  glorious  revolution  of  1770,  it  is 
r»ot  for  the  American  government  to  calculate  the 
duration  of  a  war,  that  shall  be  waged,  in  resist-' 
Jince  of  the  active  attempts  of  Great  Britain,  to 
accomplish  her  project  :  for  where  is  the  Amer 
ican  citizen,  who  would  tolerate  a  day's  submis 
sion,  to  the  vassalage  of  such  a  condition? 

But  the  American  government  has  seen,  wiih 
some  surprise,  the  gloss,  which  the  prince  regent 
of  Great-Britain,  in  his  declaration  of  the  10th 
of  January,  1813.  has  condescended  to  bestow 
upon  tl*e  British  claim  of  a  right  to  impress 
men,  on  hoard  the  merchant  vessels  of  other  na 
tions;  and  the  retort,  which  he  has  ventured  to 
make,  upon  the  conduct  of  the  United  States, 
relative  to  the  controverted  doctrines  of  expatria 
tion.  The  American  government,  like  every 
other  civilized  i^overnment,  avows  the  principle, 
and  i;i  -lilies  thepraetioe,  of  naturalizing  foreign 
ers.  I?i  Great  Britain,  and  through  the  continent 
of  Kuriipe,  the  laws  and  regulations  upon  the 
suHeot,  are  not  materially  dissimilar,  when  com 
pared  with  the  laws  and  regulations  of  the  Unit 
ed  States.  The  eifect,  however,  of  such  natur 
alization,  upon  the  connexion,  which  previously 
subsisted,  between  the  naturalized  person,  and  the 
government  of  the  country  of  his  birth,  has  been 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  fci 

differently  considered,  at  different  times,  and  in 
different  places.  Still,  there  are  many  respects, 
in  which  a  diversity  of  opinion  does  not  exist,  and 
cannot  arise.  It  is  agreed,  on  all  hands,  that  mi 
act  of  naturalization  is  not  a  violation  of  the  law 
of  nations  ;  and  that,  in  particular,  it  is  not  in  it 
self  an  offence  against  the  government,  whose 
subject  is  naturalized.  It  is  agreed,  that  an  act 
of  naturalization  creates,  between  the  par  ties,  the 
reciprocal  obligations  of  allegiance  and  protec 
tion.  It  is  agreed,  that  while  a  naturalised  citi 
zen  continues  within  the  territory  and  jurisdic 
tion  of  his  adoptive  government,  he  cannot  be 
pursued,  or  seized,  or  restrained,  by  his  former 
sovereign.  It  is  agreed,  that  a  naturalized  citi 
zen,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  claims  of 
the  sovereign  of  his  native  country,  cannot  law 
fully  be'withdrawn  from  the  obligations  of  his 
contract  of  naturalization*  by  the  force  or  seduc 
tion  of  a  third  power.  And  it  is  agreed*  that  no 
sovereign  can  lawfully  interfere,  to  take  ft  cm  the 
service,  or  the  employment,  of  another  sovereign* 
persons  who  are  not  the  subjects  of  either  of  th« 
sovereigns  engaged  in  the  transaction.  Beyond 
the  pruieipies  of  these  accorded  propositions, 
\vhat  have  the  United  States  done  to  vi'stiFy.  the 
imputation  of  "  harboring  British  seamen  aad  of 
exercising  an  assumed  right,  to  transfer  the  alle- 
gianwof  British  subjects  ?•"#  The  United  Slates 
have,  indeed,  insisted  upon  the  right  of  navigat 
ing  the  ocean  in  peace  and  safety,  protecting  all 
that  is  covered  by  their  flag,  as  on  a  place  of 
equal  and  common  jurisdiction  to  all  nations  | 
save  where  the  law  of  war  interposes  the  excep 
tions  of  visitation,  search  and-  capture  ;  but  in 
doing  this,  they  have  done  no  wrong.  The  Unit* 

*See  the  British  declaration, of  the  lOih  of  J 
U13. 


22  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

ed  States,  in  perfect  consistency,  it  is  believed, 
with  the  practice  of  all  belligerent  nations,  not 
even  excepting  Great  Britain  herself.  Lave,  in 
deed,  announced  a  determination,  since  the  dec 
laration  of  hostilities,  to  afford  protection,  as  well 
to  the  naturalized,  as  to  tbe  native  citizen,  \vho, 
giving  the  strongest  proofs  of  iidclity,  should  b«j 
taken  in  amis  by  the  enemy ;  and  tliaJElojJsh 
cabinet  well  know  that  this  determination  could 
have  no  iiAfiucnee  upon  those  councils  of  their 
sovereign,  which  preceded  and  produced  the  war. 
It  was  not,  then,  to  **  harbor  British  seamen," 
nor  to  "  transfer  the  allegiance  of  British  sub 
jects  ;"  nor  to  "  cancel  the  jurisdiction  of  the  le 
gitimate  sovereign  f  nor  to  vindicate  "  the  pre 
tensions  that  sets  of  naturalization,  and  certifi 
cates  of  citizenship,  were  as  valid  out  of  their 
territory,  as  within  it  $"#  that  the  United  States 
have  asserted  the  honor  and  the  privilege  of  their 
ilag,  by  the  force  of  reason  and  of  arms.  But  it 
was  to  resist  a  systematic  scheme  of  maritime 
aggrandizement,  which,  prescribing  to  every  oth 
er  nation  t'ie  limits  of  a  territorial  boundary, 
claimed  for  Great  Britain  the  exclusive  dominion 
of  the  seas;  and  which,  spurning  the  settled 
principles  cf  the  law  of  war,  condemned  the 
ships  and  mariners  of  the  United  States,  to  suf- 
fer,  upon  the  high  seas,  and  virtually  within  tbe 
jurisdiction  of  their  ilag,  the  most  rigorous  dis 
pensations  of  the  British  municipal  code,  inflict 
ed  by  the  coarse  and  licentious  hand  of  a  British 
press  gang. 

The  injustice  cf  the  British  claim,  and  the  cru 
elty  of  the  British  practice,  have  tested,  for  a  se 
ries  of  years,  the  pride  and  the  patience  of  the 
American  government :  but,  still,  every  experi- 

See  these  passages  in  the  British  declaration,  of  the 
January,  1813. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  23 

t 

mcnt  was  anxiously  made,  to  avoid  the  last  resort 
ef  nations.  The  claim  of  Great  Britain,  in  its 
theory,  was  limited  to  the  right  of  seeking  and 
impressing  its  own  subjects,  on  board  of  the  mer 
chant  vessels  of  the  United  States,  although  in 
fatal  experience,  it  has  been  extended  (as  already 
appears)  to  the  seizure  of  the  subjects  of  every 
other  power,  sailing  under  a  voluntary  contract 
with  the  American  merchant ;  to  the  seizure  of 
the  naturalized  citizens  of  the  United  States,  sail-% 
ing,  also,  under  voluntary  contracts,  which  every 
foreigner,  independent  of  any  act  of  naturaliza 
tion,  is  at  liberty  to  form  iii  every  country  $  and 
even  to  the  seizure  of  the  native  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  sailing  on  board  the  ships  of  their 
own  nation,  in  the  prosecution  of  a  lawful  com- 
meiee.  The  excuse  for  what  has  been  unfeeling 
ly  termed  "  partial  mistakes,  and  occasional, 
abuse,"*  when  the  right  of  impressment  was  prac 
tised  towards  vessels  of  the  United  States,  is,  in 
the  words  of  the  prince  regent's  declaration,  "  a 
similarity  of  language  and  manners,95  but  was  it 
not  known,  when  this  excuse  was  offered  to  the 
world,  that  the  Russian,  the  Swede,  the  Dane, 
and  the  German  ;  that  the  Frenchman,  the  Span 
iard,  and  the  Portuguese  ;  nay,  that  the  African, 
and  the  Asiatic  ;  between  whom  and  the  people 
of  Great  Britain  there  exists  no  similarity  of  lan 
guage,  manners  or  complexion  ;  had  been, 
equally  witu  the  American  citizen  and  the  British 
iubject,  the  victims  of  the  impress  tyranny. |  If, 
however,  the  excuse  be  sincere,  if  the  real  object 
of  the  impressment  be  merely  to  secure  to  Great 

*Seethe  British  declaration  of  the  10th  of  January, 
1813. 

|See  the  letter  of  Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of  state, 
to  Mr.  King,  minister  at  London,  of  the  26th  of  Octo 
ber,  1796  ;  and  the  letter  of  Mr.  Marshall,  secretary 
of  state,  to  Mr,  King;,  of  the  20th  of  September,  1800, 


*4  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

Britain,  the  naval  services  of  her  own  subjects, 
ami  not  to  HJKH  her  fleets,  in  every  practicable 
mode  of  enlistment,  by  ri&ht,  or  fry  wrong  $  and 
it  a  just  arid  generous  government,  professing  mu 
tual  friendship  and  respect,  n;a^  be  picsuuieii  to 
prefer  the  accomplishment  even  of  a  legitimate 
purpose,  by  means  the  least  afflicting  anil  injuri 
ous  to  others5\vhy  have  the  oven un  s  of  :Le  United 
States,  offering  other  means  as  effectual  as  im 
pressment,  for  the  purpose  avowed,  to  the  con 
sideration  and  acceptance  of  Grrat  Britain,  been 
forever  eluded  or  rejected  ?  it  has  been  offered, 
that  the  number  of  men  to  be  protected  by  an 
American  vessel  should  be  limited  by  her  tonnage  ; 
that  British  officers  should  be  permitted,  in  Brit 
ish  ports,  to  enter  the  vessel  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  number  of  men  on  board  ;  and  that  in  case  of 
an  addition  to  her  crew,  the  British  subjects  en 
listed  should  be  liable  to  impressment.*  It  was 
offered  in  the  solemn  form  of  a  law,  that  the  A- 
laerican  seamen  should  be  registeied  ;  that  they 
should  be  provided  with  certificates  of  citizen 
ship,!  and  that  the  roll  of  the  crew  of  every  ves 
sel  should  be  formally  authenticated.^  It  was  of 
fered,  that  no  refuge  or  protection  should  be  giv 
en  to  deserters  ;  but.  that,  on  the  contrary,  they 

*See  the  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  secretary  of  state,  tc 
Mr.  Pinkney,  minister  at  London,  dated  the  llth  oi 
June,  1792,  and  the  letter  of  Mr.  Pickering,  secretary 
of  state,  t«  Mr.  King,  minister  at  London,  dated  the  #th 
of  June,  1796. 

f  See  the  act  of  Congress,  passed  the  28th  of  May, 
1796. 

^See  the  letter  of  Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of  state-, 
to  Mr.  King,   minister  at  London,    dated   the  8th   < 
June,,  1796. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  *5 

should  be  surrendered.*  It  was  again  &  again  offer 
ed  to  concur  in  a  convention,  which  it  was  thought 
practicable  to  be  formed,  aud  \vhieh  would  stttls 
the  question   of  impressment,  in  a  manner   that 
would  be    safe  for  England,   and   sausiactory  to 
the  United  States.f     It  was  offered  (hat  each  par 
ty  should  prohibit  its  citizens  or  its  subjects  from 
{Clandestinely  concealing  or  carrying  away,  from 
the  territories  or  colonies  of  the  other,  any  sea 
man  belonging  to  the  other  parfy4     And9  conclu 
sively,  it  has  been   offered   and  declared  by  law, 
that  "after  the   termination  of  the  present  war, 
It  should  not  he  lawful  to  employ  on  board  of  any 
of  the  public  or   private   vessels  of  the   United 
States,  any  persons  except  citizens  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  that  no  foreigner  should  be  admitted 
to  become  a  citizen  hereafter,-  who  had   not  for 
the  continued  term  of  five  years,   resided  within 
the  United  States,  without  being,  at  anytime,  du 
ring  the  five  years,  out   of  the  territories  of   the 
United  States,'"^ 

Jt  is  manifest  then  that  such  provision  might 
be  made  by  law  ;  and  that  such  provision  has  been 
repeatedly  and  urgently  proposed ;  as  would,  in 
all  future  times,  exclude  from  the  maritime  ser 
vice  of  the  United  States,  both  in  public  and  pri 
vate  vessels,  every  person,  who  could,  possibly, 
be  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  as  a  native  subject? 
whether  he  had,  or  had  not,  been  naturalized  in 

*See  the  project  of  a  treaty  on  the  subject,  between 
Mr.  Pickering,  secretary  of  state,  and  Mr.  Listen,  the 
British  minister  at  Philadelphia,  in  the  year  1800. 

fSee  the  letter  of  Mr.  King,  minister  at  London,  to 
the  secretary  of  State,  dat-d  the  15th  of  March,  1792. 

^Seethe  letter  of  Mr.  King  to  the  secretary  of  state, 
dated  in  July,  1803. 

§Seethe  act  of  Congress,  passed  on  the  3d  of  Match. 
1813. 


:<>  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

in  Amcrico.*     Enforced  by  the   same   sanctions 
and  securities,  which  are  employed  to  enforce  the 
pi>nal  «ode  of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  the  penal 
«o«!c  cf  ihe  United  States,   the  provision   vvoftid 
afford  the  strongest  evidence,  that  no  British  sub- 
;  ( t  could  be  found  in  service  on  board   of  an  A- 
JJicrican   vessel ;    and,     consequently,    whatever 
might  be  the  British  right   of    impressment,   in 
ihe  abstract,  there  would    remain   no  justifiable 
motive,  there  could  hardly  be  invented  a  plausible 
pretext,  to  exercise  it,  at  the  expense  of   the  A- 
Jneriean  right  of  lawful  commerce.     If,  too,  as  it 
has  sometimes  been  insinuated,  (here  would,  nev 
ertheless,  he  room  for  frauds  and   evasions,  it  is 
sufficient  to  observe   that  the   American  govern 
ment  would  always  be  ready  to  hear,  and   to   re* 
dress,  every  just  complaint ;  or,  if  redress   were 
sought  and  refused,  (a  preliminary   course  that 
ought   never   to  have  been  omitted,  but  which 
Great  Britain  has  never  pursued)  it  would  still  be 
in  the  power  of  the  British  government  to  resort 
to  its  own  force,  by  acts  equivalent  to  war,  for 
the  reparation  of  its  wrongs.     But    Great  Brit 
ain  has,  unhappily,  perceived  in  the   acceptance 
of  the  overtures  of  the    American  government, 
consequences  injurious  to  her    maritime  policy  ; 
and,  therefore,  withholds  it  at  the  expense  of  her 
justice.     She  perceives,  perhaps,  a  loss  of  the  A- 
merican  nursery  for  her  seamen,  while  she   is  at 
peace  ;  a  loss  of  the  service  oi   American  crews, 
while  she  is  at  war;  and  a  loss  of  many  of  those 
opportunities,  which  have  enabled  her   to   enrich 
her  navy,   by   the   spoils  of  the  American  com 
merce,  without  exposing  her   own   commerce   to 
the  risk  of  retaliation  or  reprisal?. 

*See  the  letter  of  instructions  from  Mr.  M©nroe> 
secretary  of  State,  to  the  plenipotentiaries  for  treating 
of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  under  the  mediation  ef 
the  emperor  Alexander,  dated  the  15th  April,  1813. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

Thus,  were  the  United  States,  in  a  season    of 
reputed  peace,  involved  in  the  evils  of  ?y  slate   of 
i.  —  and  thus,  was  the    American  iln      annoyed 


by  a  nation  still  professing  to  cherish  the  senti 
ments  of  mutual  friendship  and  resect,  which 
had  been  recently  vouched,  hy  the  faip  of  a  sol 
emn  treaty,  Hat  tke  American  government  even 
yet  abstained  from  vindicating  its  /rights,  and 
from  avenging  its  wrongs,  by  an  appra]  to  arms, 
li  was  not  an  insensibility  to  those  ?  i-ongs  ;  nor 
a  dread  of  British  power  ;  nor  a  subserviency  ?o 
British  interests,  that  prevailed,  at  that  period, 
in  the  councils  of  the  United  State*  ;  but,  under 
all  trials,  the  American  gayerniiicnt  abstained 
&o;n.  the  appeal  to  arms  then,  as  imf$fc  repeatedly 
since  done,  in  its  collisions  with  I/:  a;jce,  as  well 
as  with  Great  Britain,  from  the  /purest  love  of 
peace,  while  peace  could  be  rendered  compatible 
with  the  honor  and  independence  of  the  nation. 

Daring  the  period  which  lias  hitherto  been 
more  particularly  contemplated  flfroni  the  declar 
ation  of  hostilities  between  Great  Britain  and 
France  ia  the  year  179.2,  until  the  short-lived 
fdaeificatitm  of  the  treaty  of  Amiens  in  1802) 
there  were  not.  wanting  occasions  to  test  the  con 
sistency  and  the  impartiality  of  tlie  American 
government,  by  a  comparison  of  i(s  conduct  to 
wards  Great  Britain,  with  its  conduct  towards 
other  nations.  The  manifestation  of  the  extreme 
jealousy  of  the  French  government,  and  of  the 
intemperate  zeal  of  i(s  ministers  near  the  United 
Stales,  were  coeval  with  the  proclamation  of 
neutrality;  but  after  the  ratification  of  the  trea 
ty  of  London,  the  scene  of  violence,  spoliation, 
and  contumely,  opened  by  France,  upon  the  Unit 
ed  States,  became  such,  as  to  aumit,  perhaps,  of 
no  parallel,  except  in  the  cotetnporaneous  scenes 
which  were  exhibited  by  the  injustice  of  her  great 
competitor.  The  American  government  acted, 


26  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

in  both  <?a&es,  on  the  same  pacific  policy  ;  in  the 
same  spirit  of  patience  and  forbearance  ;  but 
with  the  same  determination,  also,  to  assert  the 
honor  and  independence  of  the  nation.  When, 
therefore,  every  conciliatory  effort  had  failed, 
and  when  Jwo  successive  missions  of  peace  had 
been  contemptuously  repulsed,  the  American  gov 
ernment,  is  the  year  1798,  annulled  its  treaties 
•with  France,  and  waged  a  maritime  war  against 
tbat  nation,  for  the  defence  of  its  citizens  and  corn- 
Hieree,  passing  on  the  high  seas.  But  as  soon  as  the 
hope  was  conceived,  of  a  satisfactory  change  in  the 
dispositions  of  the  French  government,  the  A- 
mei'iean  government  hastened  to  send  another 
mission  to  France,  and  a  convention,  signed  in  the 
year  1800,  terminated  the  subsisting  differences 
between  the  two  c-oun tries. 

Nor  were  tLs  United  States  able,  during  the 
same  period,  to>  avoid  a  collision  with  the  govern- 
jHeni  of  Spain,  upon  any  important  and  critical 
questions  of  boundary  and  commerce,  of  Indian 
-warfare  and  maritime  spoliation.  Preserving, 
however,  their  st)  a  eoi  of  moderation,  in  the  as 
sertion  of  their  rights,  a  course  of  amicable  dis 
cussion  and  explanation,  produced  mutual  satis 
faction;  and  a  treaty  of  friendship,  limits  and 
navigation  was  formed  in  the  year  1795,  by  whidi 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  acquired  a  right, 
for  the  space  of  three  years,  to  deposit  their  mer 
chandize  and  effects  in  the  port  of  New-Orleans  ; 
yrhh  a  promise,  either  that  the  enjoyment  of  that 
right  should  he  indefinitely  continued,  or  that  a* 
Bother  part  of  the  hanks  of  the  Mississippi  should 
be  assured  for  an  equivalent  establishment.  But, 
when,  in  the  year  1  02,  the  port  of  New-Orleans 
•was  abruptly  closed  against  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  with*  ut  an  assignment  of  any  oth 
er  equivalent  place  of  deposite,  the  harmony  of 
the  two  countries  was  again  most  seriously  ets- 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  29 

dangercd  ;  until  (lie  Spanish  government,  -yield 
ing  to  the  remonstrances  of  (he  United  States, 
disavowed  the  act  of  the  intertdant  of  New  Or 
leans,  and  ordered  the  right  of  deposits  to  be  re 
instated,  on  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1795. 

The  effects  produced,  even  by  a  temporary  sus 
pension  of  the  right  of  deposite  at  New-Orleans, 
upon  the  interests  and  feelings  of  the  nation,  nat 
urally  suggested  to  the  American  government  the 
expediency  of  guarding  against  their  recurrence, 
by  the  acquisition  of  a  permanent  properly  ia  the 
province  of  Louisiana.     The  min-ster  of  the   li 
nked  Slates,    at  Madrid,  was,   accordingly,    in 
structed  to  apply  to  the  government  of  Spain  up 
on  the  subject  ;  and  oa  the  4th  of  May,    1.803,  he 
received  an  answer,  stating,  that    "  by  the   retro 
cession  made  to  France,  of  Louisiana,  that  power 
regained    the    province,    with   the    limits  it  had, 
saving  the  rights  acquired  by  oihor  powers  ;    and 
that  the  U  ruled  States  could   address   themselves 
to  the  Frazil  government,  to  negotiate   the  ac 
quisition  of  territories,   whicb    might   suit   their 
interest."*     But  before  this  reference,  official  in- 
forination  of  the  same  fact  had  been  received   by 
Mr.  Pinkney  frora    the  court  of    Spain,   in  the 
month  of  March  preceding;  and   the   American 
government,  having  iustiluted    a  special    mission 
to  itegeeiate   the  purchase     o,f    Louisiana    from 
FiMice,  or  from  5pai*!,  whichever  should    be   the 
sovereign,  the  purchase  was.  accordingly,  accom 
plished   for  a  valuable    consideration   (that    was 
punctually  paid)  by  the  treaty  concluded  at  Paris 
on  the  30th  April,  1803. 

*See  the  letter  from  don  Pedro  Cevallos,  the  minis 
ter  of  Spain,  to  Mr.  C.  Pinknt  y,  the  minister  cf  tht  U- 
nited  States,  dated  the  4th  of  May,  1803,  from  which 
the  passage  cited  is  literally  translated, 


30  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

The  American  government  has  not  seen,  with* 
out  some  sensibility,  that  a  transaction,  accompa 
nied  by  such  circumstances  of  general  publicity, 
and  of  scrupulous  good  faith,  has  beea  denounced 
by  the  prince  regent,  in  his  declaration  of  the  10th 
of  January,  1813,  as  a  proof  of  the  "  ungenerous 
conduct  of  the  United  States  towards  Spain."*' 
Jn  amplification  of  the  royal  charge,  the  British 
negotiator* at  Ghent,  have  presumed  to  impute 
"  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  by  the  United 
States,  to  a  spirit  of  aggrandizement,  not  ceces- 
sary  to  their  own  security  ;"  and  to  maintain 
"  that  the  purchase  was  made  against  tlie  knows 
conditions  on  which.it  had  been  ceded  by  Spain 
to  France  ;5?f  that  "  in  the  fatuj  of  the  protesta 
tion  of  ihe  minister  of  his  catholic  majesty  at 
Washington,  the  president  of  the  United  States 
ratified  the  treaty  of  purchase  f'\.  and  that 
64  there  was  good  reason  to  believe,  that  many  cir 
cumstances  attending  the  transaction  wore  indus 
triously  concealed. "§  The  American  government 
cannot  condescend  to  retort  aspersions  so  unjust, 
in  language  so  opprobrious  ;  and  peremptorily  re 
jects  the  pretension  of  Great  Britain,  to  interfere 
in  the  business  of  the  United  States  and  Spain  : 
but  it  owes,  nevertheless,  to  the  claims  of  truth, 
a  distinct  statement  of 'the  facts  which  have  been 
thus  misrepresented.  When  the  special  mission 
was  appointed  to  negociate  the  purchase  of  Lou 
isiana  from  France,  in  the  manner  already  men 
tioned,  the  American  minister  at  London  was  in- 

*See  tfye  prince  regent's  declaration  of  tfee  10th  of 
January,  1S13. 

fSee  the  note  of  the  British  commissioners,  dated 
the  4th  of  September,  1814. 

tSee  the  Rote  of  the  British  commissioners  dated 
the  19th  of  September,  1814. 

§See  the  note  ef  the  British  commissioners,  dated 
the  8th  of  October.  1814, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  51 

structed  to  explain  the  object  of  the  mission,  and 
having  made  the  explanation,  he  was  assured  by 
the  British  government.*  that  the  communica 
tion  was  received  in'goa'I  part  ;  no  ctoubt'was  sug 
gested  of  the  right  of  the  United  btates  to  pur 
sue,  separately  and  alone,  the  objects  they  aimed 
at  ;  hat  the  British  government  appeared  to  he 
satisfied  with  the  president's  views  on  this  impor 
tant  subject."*  As  soon,  too,  as  the  treaty  of 
purchase  was  concluded,  before  hostilities  were 
again  actually  commenced  between  Great  Britain 
and  France,  and  previously,  indeed,  to  the  depart 
ure  of  the  French  ambassador  from  London,  the 
American  minister  openly  'notified  to  the  British 
government,  that  a  treaty  had  been  signed,  by 
which  the  complete  sovereignly  of  the  town  and 
territory  of  New-Orleans,  as  well  as  of  all  Lou 
isiana,  as  the  same  was  heretofore  possessed  by 
Spain,  had  been  acquired  by  the.  United  StaK  s  of 
America  ;  and  teaat,  in  drawing  up  the  treaty, 
care  had  been  taken  so  to  frame  the  same,  as  not 
to  infringe  any  right  of  Great  Britain,  ir»  the 
navigation  of  "the  river  Mississippi.95!  In  the  an 
swer  of  the  British  government,  it  was  explicitly 
declared  by  Ion!  Hawkesb'ury,  "  that  he  had  re 
ceived  his  majesty's  comma  ds  to  express  the 
pleasure  with  which  his  majesty  had  received  the 
intelligence  ;  and  to  add,  that  his  majesty  regard 
ed  the  care,  which  had  been  taken  so  to  frame 
the  treaty  as  not  to  infringe  any  right  of  Great 
Britain  in  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  as 
the  most  satisfactory  evidence  of  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 

*See  the  letter  from  the  secretary  of  state,  to  Mr. 
JCing,  the.  American  minister  at  London,  dated  the  29th' 
of  January,  1803;  and  Mr,  King's  letter  to  the  secre 
tary  r>f  sfette,  Hated  the  28th  of  April,  1803. 

j  See  the  letter  of  Mr.  King  t6  lord  Hawkesbury,  da 
ted  the  15th  of  May,  1805, 


32  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

correspondent  with  that  which  his  majesty  enter 
tained,  to  promote  and  improve   that   harmony, 
Vhifeh  so  happily  subsisted  hot  ween  the  twoooun- 
tries,  and  which  was  so  conducive  to  their  Diutu- 
al  benefit."*     The   world  will   judge,   whether, 
linden  such    circumstances,   the  British  govern 
ment  had  any  cause,  on  its  own   account,   to   ar 
raign  the  conduct  of  the  United  Stares,  in    mak 
ing  the  purchase    of  Louisiana  ;    and,   certainly, 
DO  greater  cause  will  he    found  for  the    arraign 
ment,  on  account  of  Spain.  Tlio  Spani^j     .JV«-TII- 
inent  was  apprized  c;f  the  intention  of  the  Touted 
States  to  negjoeiale  for  the  purchase  of  thai  prov 
ince;  its  ambassador  witnessed   the   progress  of 
the  ncgGciation  at  .Paris  ;  and  the    conclusion    of 
the  treaty,  on     the    30? h    of  April,    1803,    was 
promptly  known  and  understood  at  Madrid      Yet 
the  Spanish  government  interposed  no    objection, 
no  protestation,  against  the   transaction,   in  Eu 
rope  ;  a;  d  it  was  not  until  the  month  of  Sept  em 
ber,  1803,  that  the  American  government  heard, 
with  surprise,  from   the   minister    of    Spain,    ut 
"Washington,  thai  his  catholic  majesty  was  dissat 
isfied  with  the  cession  of  Louisiana  to  the  United 
States.     Notwithstanding  this  diplomatic  remon 
strance,   however,  the  Spanish  government   pro 
ceeded  to  deliver  the   possession  of   Louisiana   to 
France,  in  execution  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Idelfon- 
so  ;  saw  France,  by  an  almost  simultaneous    act, 
ti-asf'*' the  possession  to  the   United    States,    in 
ex<M»u!ion  of  the  treaty  of  pun-hnse  ;  and,  finally, 
in-t  !!<•?•.•<!  the  marquis  de  Casu  Yrujo,  to  present 
to  the  V  me  near*  government   the  declaration    of 
the  15th  of  "lay,   1804,    acting  •«  by  the  special 
ordev  of  his  sovereign.'   <«  that  the  explanations, 
-which  the  government  of  France  had  given  to  his 

*See  the  letter  of  lord  Jlawkesbuiy   to  Mr.    King, 
dated  the  1.9th  of  May,  1803, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  S3 

catholic  majesty,  concerning  the  sale  of  Louisiana 
to  the  United  States,  and  the  amicable  disposi 
tions,  on  the  part  of  the  king,  his  master,  towards 
these  states,  had  determined  him  to  abandon  the 
opposition,  which,  at  a  prior  period,  and  with  the 
most  substantial  motives,  he  had  manifested  a- 
gainst  the  transaction."* 

But  after  this  amicable  si>d  decisive  arrange 
ment  of  all  differences,  in  relation  te  the  validity 
of  the  Louisiana  purchase,  a  question  of  some 
embarrassment  remained,  in  relation  to  the  boun 
daries  of  the  ceded  territory.  This  question, 
however,  the  American  government  always  has 
been,  and  always  will  he,  willing  to  discuss,  in  the 
mo^t  candid  manner,  and  to  settle  upon  the  most 
liberal  basis,  wi'h  the  government  of  Spain.  It 
was  not,  therefore,  a  fair  topic,  with  which  to  in- 
flattte  the  prince  regent's  declaration  ;  er  to  em 
bellish  the  diplomatic  notes  of  the  British  nepjo- 
eiators  at  Ghent. f  The  period  has  arrived,  when 
Spain,  relieved  from  her  European  labors,  may 
be  expected  to  bestow  her  attention,  Riore  effectu 
ally,  upon  the  state  of  hor  colonies  ;  and,  acting 
with  wisdom,  justice  and  magnanimity,  <>f  which 
she  has  given  frequent  examples,  she  will  find  no 
difficulty  in  meeting  the  recent  advance  of  the 
American  government,  for  an  honorable  adjust 
ment  of  every  point  in  controversy  between  the 
two  countries,  without  seeking  the  aid  of  British 
mediation,  or  adopting  the  animosity  of  British 
eouncils. 

*See  the  letter  of  the  marquis  de  Ca«a  Yrujo,  to  thr, 
American  secretary  of  state,  dated  the  15th  of  May, 
1804. 

|See  the  prince  regent's  declaration  of  the  10th  of 
January,  1813.  See  the  notes  of  the  British  commis 
sioners,,  dated  the  19th -of  September». 8th  Oct.  1314. 


34  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

But  still  the  United  States,  feeling  a  constant 
interest  in  the  opinion  of  enlightened  and  impar 
tial  nations,  cunnot  hesitate  to  embrace  the  op 
portunity  for  representing,  in  the  simplicity  of 
truth*  the  events,  by  which  they  have  been  led  to 
take  possession  of  a  part  of  the  Floridas,  notwith 
standing  the  ciaiui  of  Spain  to  the  sovereignty  of 
the  same  territory.  In  the  acceptation  and  under 
standing  of  the  United  States,  the  cession  of  Lou 
isiana,  embraced  the  country  south  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  territory, and  eastward  of  the  rSverMissis- 
sipp}  and  extending  to  iheriverPerdhlo$  but  "their 
conciliatory  viewe,  and  their  confidence  in  the 
j  a&t  tee  of  their  cause,  and  in  the  success  of  a  can 
did  discussion  and  amicable  negotiation  \vith  a 
just  and  friendly  power,  induced  them  to  acqui 
esce  in  tlis  te«npopy  continuance  of  that  territory 
under  the  Spanish  authority."*  When,  however, 
the  adjustment  of  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana,  as 
"well  as  a  reasonable  indemnification  on  account  of 
maritime  spoliations,  and  the  suspension  of  the 
right  of  dcposite  at  New- Orleans,  seemed  to  be 
indefinitely  postponed,  on  the  part  of  Spain,  by 
events  which  the  United  States  bad  not  contri 
buted  to  produce*  and  could  not  control  ;  when  a 
crisis  had  arrived  subversive  of  the  order  of  things 
under  the  Spanish  authorities,  contravening  the 
views  of  both  parties,  and  endangering  the  tran 
quillity  and  security  j/f  the  adjoining  territories, 
Ly  the  intrusive  establishment  of  a  government, 
independent  ef  Spain,  as  well  as  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  when,  at  a  later  period,  there  was 
reason  to  believe,  that  Great  Britain  herself  de 
signed  to  occupy  the  Floridas,  (and  she  has,  in 
deed,  actually  occupied  Fcnsacola,  for  hostile 

*Se  the  proclamation  of  the  president  of  the  United 
States^ authorising  governor  Clairborne  to  to  take  pos 
session  of  the  territory,  dated  the  27'th  of  Oct.  1810. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  33 

purposes.)  the  American  government,  without  de- 
parti'ig  iY«>  n   its  respects  for  the  rights  of  8pain, 
aod  eve  <  consui^iQ^  the  honor  of  thai   state,  un 
equal ,  us  she  then  was,  to  the  task  of  suppressing 
the  intrusive  establishment,  was  impelled  by   the 
PH»  amount  principle-  of  self-preservation,  to  res- 
c«<'    its  own   rights  from  the  impending  danger* 
Hence  the    United  Stages  in  the  year<  1810,  pro 
ceeding  step  by  step.according  to  the  growing  ex 
igences  of  the  time,  took  possession  of  the  coun 
try,  in    which  the    standard  of  independence  had 
been   displayed,    excepting  such    places  as  were 
bekl  hy  a  Spanish  force      In  the  year  1811,  they 
authorised    their  president,  by  law,  provisionally 
to  accept  of  the  possession  of  East  Florida  from 
the  local  authorities,  or  to  pre-occupy  it  against 
the  attempt  of  a  foreign  power  to  seize  it.  In  1813, 
they  obtained  the  possession   of  Mobile,  the   only 
place  then  held  by  a  Spanish  force  in  West  Florida; 
with  a  view  to  tkeir  own  immediate  security,  but 
without  varying  the  questions  depending  between 
them    and  Spain,  in   relation  to  that   province.— 
And  in  the  year  1814,  the  American  commander, 
acting  under  the  sanction  of  the  law  of  nations, 
but  unauthorised  by  the  orders  of  his  government, 
drove  from  Pensacola  the  British  troops,  who,  ia 
violation  of  the  neutral  territory  of  Spain,  (a  vio 
lation  which  Spain  it  is  believed  must  herself  re 
sent,  and  would  have  resisted,  if  the  opportunity 
had  oeeured,)  seized  and  fortified  that  stati  n,  to 
aid  in    military   operations   against    the    United 
States.     But  all  these  measures  of  safety  and  ne 
cessity  were  frankly  explained,  as  they  occurred, 
to  the  government  of  Spain,  ami  even  to  the  gov 
ernment  of  Great   Britain,  antecedently  to   tbo 
declaration  of  war,  with  the  sinccrest  assurances, 
that  tjie  possession  of  the  territory  thus  acquired, 


46  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

"should  not  cease  to  be  a  subject  of  frieniHj  ne~ 
goer-iiion  and  ftdjustinefct."* 

The  JM  »  -sent  review  of  the  conduct  of  the  United 
Sia.es,  towards  the  belligerent  powers  of  Kurope, 
wi*l  be   regarded  by  every  candid  mind,  as  a  ne 
cessary  medium   to  vindicate  their  national  char 
acter  from  the  unmerited  imputations  of  the  prince 
regent's  declaration  of  the  10th  of  January,  181S, 
and  not  as  a  medium  voluntarily  assumed,  accord 
ing  to  the  insinuations  of  that  declaration,  f  *  r  the 
revival  of  UHWorthy  prejudices,  or  vindictive  pas 
sions,  in   reference  to  transactions  that  are  past. 
The  treaty  of  Amiens,  which  seemed  to  termin 
ate  the  war  in  Europe,  seetned  also  to  terminate 
the  neutral  sufferings  of  America  ;  but  the  hcpe 
ef  repose  was.  in  both  respects,  delusive  and  tran 
sient.    The  hostilities  that  were  renewed  between 
Great  Britain  and  France,  in  the  year  1803,  were 
immediately   followed  by  the  renewal  of  the  ag 
gressions  of  the  belligerent  powers,  upon  the  com- 
iftierc'rai  rights,  and  political  independence  of  the 
United  States.     There    was  scarcely,   therefore, 
an  interval  separating  the  aggressions  of  the  fir*t 
"war,   from  the    aggresbi^  ns  of  the    second  wnr  \ 
and  although,  in  nature*  ihe  aggressions  centinu- 


letter  from  the  secretary  of  state  to  governor 
Cli-iiborne,  and  the  proclamation  dated  the  27th  of  Oc 
tober,  1810  : 

Scv  tt»^  proceedings  of  the  convention  ot  Florida, 
transmitted  to  the  secretary  of  st»te,by  the  government 
of  the  Mississippi  territory,  in  his  letter  of  the  17th  of 
Qctober,  1810*  and  the  answer  of  the  secretary  of 
state,  ^iated  t4.e  I5t^  of  N  vember,  1810  : 

See  the  letter  of  Mr.  Morier,  British  charge  de  af- 
fairesvto  t  e  secretary  of  state,  dated  the  15th  of  De- 
•ember,  1810,  and  the  secretary's  answer  : 

See  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Monroe,  and 
M-.  Foster,  the  British  minister,  in  the  mouths  of  July, 
September,  a%d  NoYcmbw,  ISlle 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  3f 

ed  to  be  the  same,  in  extent  they  became  incalcu 
lably  more  destructive.  It  will  be  seen,  however, 
that  the  American  government,  inflexibly  main 
tained  its  nemral  and  pacific  policy*  in  every  ex- 1 
tremity  of  the  latter  trial,  with  the  same  good 
faith  and  forbearance,  that,  in  the  former  trial, 
had  distinguished  its  conduct  ;  until  it  was  com 
pelled  to  choose,  from  the  alternative  of  national 
degradation,  or  national  resistance.  And  if  Great 
Britain  alone  then  became  the  object  of  the  A- 
merican  declaration  of  war,  it  will  he  seen,  that 
Great  Britain  alone,  had  obstinately  closed  the 
door  of  amicable  negotiation. 

The  American  minister  at  I  ondon,  anticipat 
ing  the  rupture  between  Great  Britain  and  France, 
had  obtained  assurances  from  the  British  govern 
ment,  "  that,  in  the  event  of  war,  the  instructions 
given  to  their  naval  officers  should  be  drawn  up 
with  plainness  and  precision  ;  and,  in  general, 
that  the  belligerents  should  be  exercised  in  mod 
eration*  and  with  due  respect  to  those  of  neu 
trals.'**  And  in  relation  to  the  important  sub 
ject  of  impressment,  he  had  actually  prepared  for 
signature,  with  the  assent  of  lord  Ilawesbury  and 
lord  St.  Vincent,  a  convention  to  continue  during 
five  years,  declaring  that  "  no  seaman,  nor  sea 
faring  person,  should,  upon  the  high  seas,  and 
without  the  jurisdiction  of  either  party,  be  de 
manded  or  taken  out  of  any  ship  or  vessel,  be 
longing  to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  one  of  the 
parties,  by  the  public  or  private  armed  ships,  or. 
men  of  war,  belonging  to,  or  in  the  service  of,  the 
other  party  ;  and  that  strict  orders  should  be  giv 
en  for  the  due  observance  of  the  engagement.5'!- 

*See  the  letter  of  Mr.  King,  to  the  secretary  of  state, 
dated  the  16th  of  May,  1 805. 

fSeethe  letter  of  Mr,  King,  to  the  secretary  of  state, 
dated  July,  1803. 

a 


38  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

This    convention,   which  explicitly  relinquished 
impressments  from  American  vessels  on  the  high 
seas,  and  to  which   the  British   minisiers  had,  at 
iirst,  agreed,  lord  St.  Vincent  was  desirous  after 
wards  to  modify,  "  stating,  that  on  further  reflec 
tion,  lie   was  of  opinion,   that  the    narrow    seas 
should  be  expressly  excepted,   they  having  been, 
as  his  lordship  remarked,  immemoriaily  eonsider- 
fd  to  be  within  the  dominion  of  Great  Britain.5* 
The   American  minister  however,  "  having  sup 
posed,  from  the  tenor  of  his  conversations   with 
lord  St.  Vincent,  that  the  doctrine  of  mare  clau- 
sum   would   not  be   revived  against  the  United 
States  on  this  occasion  ;  but  that  England  would 
be  content,  with  the  limited  jurisdiction,  or  do 
minion,  over  the  seas  adjacent  to  her  territories, 
wrhich  is  assigned  by  the  law  of  nations  to  other 
states,  was  disappointed,   on   receiving  lord   St. 
Vincent's  communication  ;  and   chose  rather  to 
abandon  the  negociation,  than  to  acquiesce  in  the 
doctrine  it  proposed  to  establish.5'^     But  it  was 
still  some  satisfaction  to  receive  a  formal  declar 
ation  from  the  British  government,  communicat 
ed  by  its  minister  at  Washington,  after  the  re 
commencement  of  the  war  in  Europe,  wbich  pro 
mised  in  effect  to  reinstate  the  practice  of  naval 
blockades,   upon  the  principles  of  the  law  of  na 
tions  ;  so  that  no  blockade  should  be  considered 
as  existing,  "  unless  in  respect  of  particular  ports 
which  might  be  actually  invested  ;  and,  then,  that 
the  vessels  bound  to  such  ports  should  not  be  cap- 

*See  the  letter  of  Mr,  King  to  the  secretary  of  state* 
dated  July,  1803. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  S* 

lured,  unless  they    had  previously   been   warned 
not  to  entrr  them."* 

Ail  the  precautions  of  the  American  govern 
ment  were,  nevertheless,  ineffectual,  and  Ute  as- 
suranuesof  the  British  government  were,  in  no 
instance,  verified.  The  outrage  of  impressroeiij 
Viis  again  and  indiscriminately  perpetrated  upon 
the  crew  of  every  American  vessel,  and  on  every 
sea.  The  enormity  of  blockades,  established  by 
an  order  in  council,  without  the  application  of  a 
competent  farce,  was*  more  and  more  developed. 
The  rule,  denominated  "  the  rule  of  the  war  of 
1756,"  was  revived  in  an  affected  style  of  moder 
ation,  but  in  a  spirit  of  more  rigorous  execution.! 
The  lives,  the  liberty,  the  fortunes  and  the  hap 
piness  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  engag 
ed  in  the  pursuits  of  navigation  and  commerce* 
"were  once  more  subjected  to  the  violence  and  cu 
pidity  of  the  British  cruizers.  And,  in  brief,  so 
grievous,  so  intolerable,  had  the  afflictions  of  the 
nation  become,  that  the  people  with  one  mind,  and 
ono  voiee,  called  loudly  on  their  government,  for 
redress.and  protection  :^:  tho  congress  of  the  Uni 
ted  States,  participating  in  the  feelings  and  re 
sentment  of  the  time,  urged  upon  the  executive 
magistrate,  the  necessity  of  an  immediate  demand 

*See  Ijhe  letter  of  Mr.  Merry  to  the  secretary  of 
state,  the  12th  of  April,  1804,  and  the  enclosed  copy  of 
a  letter  from  Mr.  Nepean,  the  secretary  of  the  admi- 
rality,  to  Mr.  Hammond,  the  British  under  secretary  of 
state  of  foreign  affairs,  dated  January  5,  1 804. 

fSee  the  orders  in  council  of  the  24th  of  June,  1803, 
and  the  17th  of  August,  1805. 

tSee  the  memorials  of  Boston,  New- York,  Phila 
delphia,  Baltimore,  &c.  presented  to  congress  in  the 
end  of  the  year  1 805 }  and  the  beginning  of  the  year  1 80S. 


40  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

of  reparation  from  Great  Britain  ;*  while  the 
same  patriotic  spirit,  which  had  opposed  British 
usurpation  in  1793,  and  encountered  French  hos 
tility  in  1798,  was  again  pledged,  in  every  variety 
of  form,  to  the  maintenance  of  (he  national  honor 
and  independence,  during  the  more  arduous  trial 
that  arose  in  1805. 

Amidst  the  scenes  of  injustice  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  reclamation  on  the  other,  the  American 
government  preserved  its  equanimity  and  its  firm 
ness,  It  beheld  much  in  the  conduct  of  France, 
and  of  her  ally,  Spain,  to  provoke  reprisals.  It 
beheld  more  in  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain, 
tLat  led  unavoidably  (as  hud  cfien  been  avowed) 
lo  the  last  resort  of  arms.  It  beheld  in  the  tem 
per  of  the  nation,  all  that  was  requisite  to  justify 
an  iiii mediate  selection  of  Great  Britain,  as  ihe 
cbject  of  a  declaration  of  war.  And  it  could  not 
bur  behold  ia  the  policy  of  France,  the  strongest 
motive  to  acquire  the  United  States,  as  an  asso 
ciate  in  the  existing  conflict.  Yet,  these  consid 
erations  did  not  then,  more  than  at  any  former 
crisis,  subdue  the  fortitude,  or  mislead  the  judg 
ment,  of  the  American  government ;  but  in  per 
fect  consistency  with  its  neutral,  as  well  as  its  pa- 
eiiic  system,  it  demanded  atonement,  Ly  remon 
strances  with  France  and  Spain ;  and  it  sought 
the  preservation  of  peace,  by  negotiation  with 
Great  Britain. 

1  has  been  s^ own,  that  a  treaty  proposed,  em 
phatically,  by  the  British  minister,  resident  at 
Philadelphia,  *  bs  the  means  of  drying  up  every 
source  of  complaint  and  irritation,  upon  the  head 
of  impressment,"  was  **  deemed  utterly  inadniis- 

§See  the  resolutions  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  10th-  and  14th  of  February,  1806  ;  and 
the  resolution  of  the  house  of  representatives  of  the 

United  States, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  41 

slble"  by  the  American  government,  because  it 
did  not  sufficiently  provide  for  that  object.^  It 
has,  also,  been  shown,  that  another  treaty,  pro 
posed  by  the  American  minister  at  London,  was 
laid  aside,  because  the  British  government,  while 
it  was  willing  to  relinquish,  expressly,  impress 
ments  from  American  vessels,  on  the  high  seas, 
insisted  upon  an  exception,  in  reference  to  the 
narrow  seas,  claimed  as  a  part  of  the  Briiish  do- 
ir.iiiion  :  and  experience  demonstrated,  that  al 
though  tlu-  spoliations  committed  upon  the  Amer 
ican  commerce,  might  admit  of  reparation,  by 
the  payment  of  a  pecuniary  equivalent ;  yet,  con 
sult  ing  the  honor,  and  the  feelings  of  the  nation, 
it  was  impossible  to  receive  satisfaction  for  the 
cruelties  of  impressment,  by  any  other  means, 
than  by  un  entire  discontinuance  of  the  practice. 
"When,  therefore,  the  envoys  extraordinary  were 
appointed  in  the  yearlS06,  to  negotiate  with  the 
British  government,  every  authority  was  given, 
for  the  purposes  of  conciliation  ;  nay.  an  act  of 
Congress,  prohibiting  the  importation  of  certain 
articles  ef  British  manufacture  into  <he  United 
States,  was  suspended,  is  proof  of  a  friendly  dis 
position  $ |  but  it  was  declared,  that  **  I  ho  sup 
pression  of  impressment,  and  the  definition  of 
blockades,  were  absolutely  indispensable  ;"  and 
that,  "  without  a  provision  against  impressments, 
no  treaty  should  be  concluded."  The  Ameviean 
envoys  accordingly,  took  care  to  communicate  to 

*See  Mr.  Listonte  letter  to  the  secretary  of  state., 
dated  the  4th  of  February,  1800  ;  and  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Pickering,  secretary  of  state,  to  the  president  of  the 
Ur.ited  States,  dated  the  20th  ef  February,  1800. 

fSee  the  act  of  Congress,  passed  the  18th  day  of 
April,  1806;  and  the  act  suspending  it,  passed  the 
19th  of  December,  1806. 


42  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

the  British  commissioners,  the  limitations  of  their 
powers.     Influenced,  at  the  same  time,  by   a  sin- 
cere  desire  to  terminate  the  differences  'between 
the  two  nations  ;  knowing  the  solicitude  of  their 
government,  to  relieve  its  seafaring  citizens  from 
actual  sufferance  ;  listening  with  confidence,   to 
assurances  and  explanations  of  the  British   com 
missioners,  in  a  sense  favorable   to  their  wishes  ; 
and  judging  fro  in  a  state  of  information,  that  gave 
no  immediate  cause  to  doubt  the  sufficiency  of 
those  assurances  and  explanations ;    the  envoys, 
rather  than  terminate   the  negooiation    without 
any  arraagement,  were  willing  to  rely  on  the   ef 
ficacy  of  a  substitute,  for  a  positive  article  in  the 
treaty,  to  be  submitted   to  the   consideration   of 
tkeir  government,  as  this,  according   to  the  dec 
laration  of  the  British  commissioners,  was  the 
only  arrangement,  they  were   permitted  at   that 
time,  to  propose  or  to  allow.     The  substitute  was 
presented  in  the  form  of  a  note  from  the  British 
commissioners  to  the  American  envoys,  and  con- 
tamed  a  pledge,  "  that  instructions  had  been  giv 
en,  and  should  be  repeated  and  enforced,  for   the 
observance  of  the  greatest  caution  in  the  impres 
sing  of  British  seamen  ;  that  the   strictest  care 
should  be  taken  to  preserve  the   citizens  of   the 
United  States  from   any  molestation  or  injury  ; 
and  that  immediate  and  prompt  redress  should  be 
afforded,  upon  any  representation  of   injury  sus 
tained  by  them."* 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  treaty  contained  no 
provision  against  impressment,  and  it  was  seenbj 
the  government,  when  the  treaty  was  under  con 
sideration  for  ratification,  that  the  pledge  con 
tained  in  the  substitute  was  not  complied  with, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  impressments  were 

*See  the  note  of  the  British  commissioners,  dated 
*th  of  November,  1806. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  43 

continued,  with  undiminished  violence,  ia  the  A- 
merican  seas,  so  long  after  the  alledged  date  of 
the  instructions,  which  were  to  arrest  them  ;  that 
the  practical  inefficacy  of  the  substitute  could  not 
be  doubted  by  the  government  here,  the  ratifica 
tion  of  the  treaty  was  necessarily  declined  ;  and 
it  has  since  appeared,  that  after  a  change  in  the 
British  ministry  had  taken  place,  it  was  declared 
by  the  secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  that  no  en 
gagements  were  entered  into,  on  the  part  of  his 
majesty,  as  connected  with  the  treaty,  except  such 
as  appear  upon  the  face  of  it.* 

The  American  government,  however,  with  un- 
abating  solicitude  for  peace,  urged  an  immediate 
renewal  of  the  negociations  on  the  basis  of  the 
abortive  treaty,  until  this  course  was  peremptorily, 
declared,  by  the  British  government,  to  be  "whol 
ly  inadmissible."! 

But,  independent  of  the  silence  of  the  proposed 
treaty,  upon  the  great  topic  of  American  Com 
plaint,  and  of  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of 
the  projected  substitute ;  the  contemporaneous 
declaration  of  the  British  commissioners,  deliv 
ered  by  the  command  of  their  sovereign,  and  to 
which  the  American  envoys  refused  to  make 
themselves  a  party,  or  to  give  the  slightest  de 
gree  of  sanction,  was  regarded  by  the  American 
government,  as  ample  cause  of  rejection.  In 
reference  to  the  French  decree,  which  had  been 
issued  at  Berlin,  on  the  21st  of  November,  1806, 
it  was  declared  that  if  France  should  carry  the 
threats  of  that  decree  into  execution?  and  if 
"  neutral  nations,  contrary  to  all  expectation, 
should  acquiesce  in  such  usurpations,  his  majesty 
might,  probably,  be  compelled,  however  reluc- 

*See  Mr.  Canning's  letter  to  the  American  envoys; 
dated  27th  October  1 807, 
tSee  the  same  letter, 


44  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

tanUy,  to  retaliate,  in  his  just  defence,  and  to 
adopt,  in  regard  to  the  commerce  of  neutral  na 
tions,  with  liis  enemies,  the  same  measures,  which 
those  nations  should  have  permitted  to  be  enforc 
ed,  against  th<*ir  commerce  with  his  subjects  i" 
((  that  his  majesty  could  not  enter  into  the  stipu 
lations  of  the  present  treaty,  without  an  explana 
tion  from  the  United  States  of  their  intentions, 
or  a  reservation  on  the  part  of  his  majesty,  in 
the  case  ahove  mentioned,  if  it  should  ever  occur/5 
and  «•  that  without  a  formal  abandonment,  or  tac 
it  relinquishment  of  the  unjust  pretensions  of 
France  ;  or  without  such  conduct  and  assuran 
ces  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States,  as  should 
give  security  to  his  majesty,  that  they  would  not 
submit  to  the  French  innovations,  in  the  estab 
lished  system  of  maritime  lawf  his  majesty  would 
not  consider  himself  bound  by  the  present  signa 
ture  of  his  commissioners,  to  ratify  the  treaty,  or 
precluded  Srom  adopting  such  measures  as  might 
seem  necessary  for  counteracting  the  designs  of 
the  enemy."* 

The  reservation  of  a  power,  to  invalidate  a  sol 
emn  treaty,  at  the  pleasure  of  «*ne  of  the  parties 
and  the  menaces  of  inflicting  punishment  upon 
the  United  States,  for  ihe  offences  of  another  >»a- 
tion.  proved,  in  the  event,  a  prelude  to  Ihe  se<  nes 
of  violence,  which  Of  fat  Britain  was  th^n  a'  out 
to  display,  and  which  it  would  have  bt* e«  improp 
er  for  the  American  negotiators  to  anticipate. 
For,  if  a  commentary  were  wanting  to  explain 
the  real  design  of  such  conduct,  it  would  he  found 
in  the  fact,  that  within  eight  days  Fom  the  date 
of  the  treaty,  and  before  it  was  possible  for  the 
British  government  to  have  known  the  effect  of 

*See  the  note  of  the  British  commissioners  dated  the 
31st  December,  1806.  Sev  also  the  answer  of  Messrs, 
Monroe  and  Pinkney  to  that  note. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  45 

the  Berlin  decree  on  the  American  government ; 
Bay,  even  before  the  American  government  had 
itself  heard  of  that  decree,  the  destruction  of 
American  commerce  was  commenced  by  the  order 
in  council  of  the  7th  of  January,  1807,  which  an 
nounced.  "  that  no  vessel  should  be  permitted  to 
trade  from  one  port  to  another,  both  which  ports 
should  belong  to,  or  be  in  possession  of  France, 
or  her  allies  :  or  should  be  so  far  under  their 
control,  as  that  British  vessels  might  not  trade 
freely  thereat."* 

During  the  whole  period  of  this  negociation, 
which  did  not  finally  close  until  the  British  gov 
ernment  declared,  in  the  month  of  October,  1807, 
that  negoeiatian  was  no  knger  admissible,  ihe 
course  pursued  by  the  British  squadron,  stationed 
more  iuunediately  on  the  American  coast,  was  in 
the  extreme,  vexatious,  predatory  and  hostile. 
The  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
extending,  upon  the  principles  of  the  law  of  na 
tions,  at  least  a  league  ever  the  adjacent  ocean, 
was  totally  disregarded  and  contemned.  Vessels 
employed  in  the  coasting  trade,  or  in  the  busi 
ness  of  the  pilot  and  the  fisherman,  were  objects 
of  incessant  violence  ;  their  petty  cargoes  were 
plundered  ;  and  some  of  their  scanfy  crews  were 
often,  either  impressed,  or  wounded,  or  killed,  by 
the  force  of  British  frigates. — British  ships  of 
war  hovered,  in  warlike  display,  upon  the  coast ; 
blockaded  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  so  that 
no  vessel  could  enter  or  depart  in  safety  ;  pene 
trated  the  bays  and  rivers,  and  even  anchored  in 
the  harbors,  of  the  United  States,  to  exercise  a 
jurisdiction  of  impressment;  threatened  the 
towns  and  villages  with  conflagration  ;  and  wan 
tonly  discharged  musketry,  as  well  as  cannon,  up 
on  the  inhabitants  of  an  open,  and  unprotected 

*See  the  order  in  council  of  January  7,  1807, 


4S  AMERICAN  EXPOSE, 

country.  The  neutrality  oftfae  American  territory 
was  violated  on  every  occasion  :  and,  at  iiih  .  me 
American  government  was  doomed'  to  suifrr  the 
greatest  indignity  which  vould  be  offered  to  a  ••  r« 
eivignand  independent  nation*  in  t be  e\er  memor- 
able  attack  of  a  British  fifty  gun  ship,  under  the 
countenance  of  the  British  sq  iad  ^-ed 

within  the  waters  ef  the  Uni< 
frigate  Chesapeake,  peaceably  pi'oseeui. i  ^  a 
tant  voyage.  The  British  gov^rnnieiit  jii&ei.ed, 
from  time  to  time,  to  disapprove  and  condemn 
these  outrages  ;  but  the  officers  who  perpetrated 
them  were  generally  applauded  ;  if  tried,  they 
were  acquitted  ;  if  removed  from  the  American 
station,  it  "was  only  to  he  promoted  in  another 
station  ;  and  if  atonement  wre  oifered,  as  in  the 
flagrant  instance  of  the  frSgat  *  Clif'sappakp,  the 
atonement  was  so  ungracious  in  the  manner,  and 
so  tardy  in  the  result,  as  to  be  1  ray  the  want  of 
that  conciliatory  spirit  whieli  ought  to  have  char 
acterized  it.* 

But  the  American  government,  snojhsng  the 
exasperated  spirit  of  the  people,  by  a  proclama 
tion  which  interdicted  the  entrance  of  all  British 
armed  vessels,  into  the  harbors  and  waters  of  the 
United  States,-)-  neither  coon  me  need  hostilities  a- 
gainst  Great  Britain  ;  nor  sought  a  defensive  al 
liance  with  Franee  ;  nor  relaxed  in  its  firm,  but 
conciliatory,  efforts,  to  enforce  the  claims  of  jus 
tice,  upon  the  honor  of  both  nations. 

*See  the  evidence  of  these  facts  reported  to  con 
gress  in  November  1806. 

See  the  documents  respecting  captain  Love,  of  the 
Driver  ;  captain  Whitby,  of  the  Leancler. 

See,  also,  the  correspondence  respecting  the  frigate 
Chesapeake,  with  Mr.  Canning,  at  London  ;  with  Mr. 
Rose,  at  Washington  ;  with  Mr.  Lrskine,  at  Wash 
ington. 

jSee  the  proclamation  of  the  3d  of  July,  1807. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  ,47 

The  rival  ambition  of  Great  Britain  and  France, 
now,however,approaehed  the  consummation/whieh 
irvaiving  liie  destruction  of  all  neutral  ngfus, 
upon  an  avowed  principle  of  action,  could  not  fail 
to  render  an  actual  state  of  war,  comparatively, 
more  safe,  and  more  prosperous,  than  the  imagi 
nary  state  of  peace,  to  which  neutrals  were  re 
duced.  The  just  and  impartial  conduct  of  a  neu 
tral  nation,  ceased  to  be  its  shieUl,  and  its  safe 
guard,  when  the  conduct  of  the  belligerent  powers 
towards  each  other  became  the  only  criterion  of 
the  law  of  war.  The  wrong  committed  by  one 
of  the  belligerent  powers  was  thus  made  the  sig 
nal  for  the  perpetration  of  a  greater  wrong  by 
the  other  $  and  if  the  American  government  com 
plained  to  both  powers,  their  answer,  although  it 
never  denied  the  causes  of  complaint,  invariably 
retorted  an  idle  and  offensive  inquiry,  into  the 
priority  of  their  respective  aggressions  ;  or  each 
demanded  a  course  of  resistance  against  its  antag 
onist,  which  was  calculated  to  proa*  rate  the  A- 
raerican  government  and  coerce  the  United  States, 
against  their  interest  and  their  policy,  into  be 
coming  an  associate  in  the  war.  But  the  Amer 
ican  government  never  did,  and  never  can,  admit, 
ihat  a  belligerent  power,  "  in  taking  steps  to  re 
strain  the  violence  of  its  enemy,  and  to  retort 
upon  them  the  evils  of  their  own  injustice,"*  is 
entitled  to  disturb  and  to  destroy,  the  rights  of  a 
neutral  power,  as  recognized  and  established,  by 
the  law  of  nations.  It  was  impossible  indeed, 
that  the  real  features  of  the  miscalled  retaliatory 
system  should  be  long  masked  from  the  world  ; 
when  Great-Britain,  even  in  her  acts  of  profes 
sed  retaliation,  declared,  that  France  was  unable 
to  execute  the  hostile  denunciations  of  her  de 
crees;!  and  when  Great  Britain  herself  unblusli- 

*See  the  or  lers  in  council  ofthe  7th  of  January,  1807. 
fSee  the  orders  in  council  of  the  7th  of  January,  1 807. 


48  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

ingly  entered  into  the  same  commerce  >vith  her 
enemy  (through  the  medium  of  forgeries,  perju 
ries,  and  iicen^vh)  fiofci  which  she  had  interdic 
ted  unoffending  neutrals.  The  pride  of  naval  su 
periority  ;  and  the  cravings  of  commercial  mo 
nopoly  ;  gave,  after  all,  (he  impulse  and  direction 
to  the  councils  of  the  British  cabinet  ;  while  the 
vast,  although  visionary,  projects  of  France,  fur 
nished  occasions  and  pretexts,  for  accomplishing 
theob'cets  of  those  councils. 

The  British  minister  resident  at  Washington  in 
the  year  1804,  having  distinctly  recognized,  in 
the  name  of  his  sovereign,  <he  legitimate  princi 
ples  of  blockade,  the  American  government  re 
ceived  with  some  surprise  and  solicitude,  the  suc 
cessive  ir  tifieatioHs  of  the  9th  of  August  1804, 
the  8th  of  April,  1866,  and  more  particularly, 
of  the  16th  of  May,  1806,  announcing  by  the  last 
notification,  *•  a  blockade  of  the  coast,  rivers  and 
ports  from  the  river  Elbe  to  the  port  of  Brest, 
both  inclusive."!  In  none  of  the  notified  instances 
of  blockade,  were  the  principles,  that  had  been 
recognized  in  180-fc,  adopted  and  pursued,  and  it 
will  be  recollected  by  all  r  urope,  that  neither  at 
the  time  of  the  notification  of  the  16th  of  May, 
1806  ;  nor  at  the  time  of  excepting  the  Elbe  and 
Ems,  from  the  operation  of  that  notification  i\ 
nor  at  any  other  time  during  the  continuance  of 
the  French  war,  vas  there  an  adequate  naval 
force,  actually  applied  by  Great  Britain,  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  a  blockade,  from  the  river 

fSee  lord  Harrowby's  note-  to  Mr.  Monroe,  dated  the 
9th  of  August,  1804,  and  Mr.  Fox's  notes  to  Mr.  Mon 
roe,  dated  respectively  the  8th  of  April,  and  the  16th 
of  May,  1806. 

tSee  lord  Howick's  note  to  Mr.  Monroe,  dated  the 
25th  September,  1806, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  49 

Elbe,  to  the  port  of  Brest.  It  was  then  in  the 
language  of  the  day,  "  a  mere  paper  M!*'«*.kade  ^ 
a  manfcst  infraction  of  the  iuw  <>i  ualio  •  i  iuid 
&n  act  of  peculiar  injustice  to  ihc  United  Stales* 
as  the  only  neutral  power?  against  which  it  woyjd 
practically  operate.  But  whatever  may  have 
been  the  sense  of  the  American  government  on 
the  occasion  ;  and  whatever  might  he  the  dispo 
sition,  to  avoid  making  this  thegroir d  of  an  open 
rupture  with  Great  Britaiu,  the  ^ase  assumed  a 
character  of  the  highest  interest,  when  indepen 
dent  ef  its  own  injurious  consequences}  France 
in  the  Berlin  decree  of  the  21st  of  Rovcttiber* 
1806,  recited  as  a  chief  cause  for  placing  the 
British  islands  in  a  state  of  blockade,  •*  that 
Great  Britain  declares  blockaded,  places  before 
which  she  has  not  a  single  vessel  of  war  $  and 
even  places  which  her  united  forces  would  be  in 
capable  of  blockading  ;  such  as  entire  coasts,  and 
a  whole  empire  ;  an  unequalled  abuse  of  the  right 
of  blockade,  that  had  no  other  object,  than  to  in 
terrupt  thecommnnlcalions  of  different  nations  ; 
and  to  extend  the  commerce  and  industry  of  r. fig- 
hind,  upon  the  ruin  of  those  natious."*  The  A- 
merican  government  aims  not,  and  never  has 
aimed  at  the  justification,  either  of  Great  Brit 
ain  or  of  France,  in  their  career  of  elimination 
and  recrimination  ;  but  it  is  of  some  irapertanee 
to  observe,  that  if  the  blockade  of  May  1806, 
was  an  unlawful  blockade,  and  if  the  right  of  re 
taliation  arosp  with  the  first  unlawful  allack, 
made  by  a  belligerent  power  upon  neutral  rights, 
Gr*  it  Britain  has  yet  to  answer  to  mankind,  ac 
cording  to  the  rule  of  her  own  acknowledgment, 
for  all  the  calamities  of  the  retaliatory  warfare. 
France,  whether  right,  or  wrong,  made  the  Brit- 

*Seethe  Berlin  decree  of  the  .2 1st  November,  L806, 
B 


50  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

jsh  system  of  blockade,  the  foundation  of  (he 
Berlin  decree  ;  and  France  had  an  equal  right 
with  Great  Britain  to  demand  from  the  United 
States,  an  opposition  to  every  encroachment  upon 
the  privileges  of  the  neutral  character.  It  is 
enough,  however,  on  the  present  occasion,  for  the 
American  government,  to  observe,  (hat  it  posses 
sed  no  power  to  prevent  the  framing  of  the  Ber 
lin  decree,  and  to^disclaim  any  approbation  of  its 
principles,  or  acquiescence  in  its  operations  :  for 
it  neither  belonged  to  Great  Britain  nor  to  France 
to  prescribe  to  the  American  government,  the 
time  or  the  mode,  or  the  degree  of  resistance,  to 
(he  indignities,  and  the  outrages,  with  which  each 
of  those  nations  in  its  turn  assailed  the  United 
States. 

But  it  has  been  shown,  that  after  the  British 
government  possessed  a  knowledge  of  the  exist 
ence  of  the  Berlin  decree,  it  authorized  the  con 
clusion  of  (he  treaty  with  the  United  States 
which  was  signed,  at  London,  on  the  Slst  of  De 
cember,  1806,  reserving  to  itself  the  power  of 
annulling  the  treaty,  if  France  did  not  revoke, 
or  if  the  United  States,  as  a  neutral  power,  did 
not  resist,  the  obnoxious  ireasure.  It  has,  also, 
been  shown,  that  before  dreat  Britain  could  pos 
sibly  ascertain  ihe  determination  of  the  United 
States,  in  relation  to  the  Berlin  decree,  the  orders 
in  council  of  the  7th  of  January,  1807,  were  issu 
ed,  professing  to  be  a  retaliation  against  France, 
"  at  a  time  when  the  fleets  of  France  and  her  al 
lies  were  themselves  confined  within  their  own 
ports,  by  the  superior  valor  and  discipline  of  the 
British  navy,"*  but  operating,ia  faet,against  the 
United  States,  as  a  neutral  power,  to  prohibit 
their  trade  "  from  a  due  port  to  another,  both 

•"*See  the  order  in  council  of  the  7th  of    January, 

1807. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  M 

pirts  should  belong  to,  or  be  in  the  posses 
sion  of,  France  or  her  allies,  or  should  be  so  far 
under  their  controls,  as  that  British  vessels  might 
jiot  tra-le  freely  thereat."^  It  remains,  however, 
to  be  stated,  that  it  was  not  until 'the  12th  of 
March,  180r,  thai  the  British  minister,  then  re 
siding  at  Washington,  communicated  to  the  A- 
mcriean  government,  in  the  name  of  his  sove 
reign,  the  orders  in  council  of  January,  1807* 
•with  an  intimation,  that  stronger  measures  would 
be  pursued,  unless  the  United  States  should  re 
sist  the  operations  of  the  Berlin  decree. f  At  the 
rooment,  the  British  government  was  reminded, 
"  that  within  the  period  of  those  great  events, 
which  continued  to  agitate  Europe,  instances  had 
occurred,  in  which  the  commerce  of  neutral  na 
tions,  more  especially  of  the  United  States,  had 
experienced  the  severest  distresses  from  its  own 
orders  and  measures,  manifestly  unauthorized  by 
the  law  of  natioas  ;"  assurances  were  given> 
"  that  no  culpable  acquiescence  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  would  render  them  accessary  to 
the  proceedings  of  one  belligerent  nation,  through 
their  rights  of  neutrality,  against  the  commerce 
of  its  ad versary  ;  and  the  right  of  Great  Britain 
to  issue  such  orders,  unless  as  orders  of  blockade,, 
to  be  enforced  according  to  the  law  of  nations^ 
was  utterly  denied.:}. 

This  candid  and  explicit  avowal  of  the'  senti 
ments  of  the  American  government,  upon  an  occa 
sion,  so  novel  and  important  in  the  history  of  na 
tions,  did  not,  however,  make  its  just  impression 
upon  the  British  cabinet ;  for,  without  assigning 

*See  the  order  in  council  of  the  7th  of  January 
3807. 

fSee  Mr.  Erskine's  letter  to  the  secretary  of  state, 
elated  the  12th  of  March,  1807. 

tSee  the  secretary  of  state's  letter  to  Mr.  Erskine, 
dated,  the  20th  of  March,  1807. 


5*  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

any  new  provocation  on  the  part  of  France,  anil 
complaining,  merely,  that  neutral  powers  had  not 
been  induced  to  interpose,  with  effect,  to  obtain 
arevoeation  of  the  Berlin  decree,  (whiefe,  howev 
er.  Great  Britain  had  affirmed  to  be  a  decree 
nominal  and  inoperative)  the  orders  in  council  of 
the  nth  November,  1807,  were  issued,  declaring, 
^  that  all  the  ports  and  places  of  France  and  her 
allies,  or  of  any  other  country  at  war  with  his 
majesty,  and  a}J  other  ports  or  places  in  Kurope* 
from  wh'ch  although  nut  at  war  with  his  majesty, 
the  British  flag  war*  excluded,  and  all  ports  or 
{daces  in  the  colonies  belonging  to  his  majesty's 
enemies,  should,  from  thenceforth,  be  subject  to 
the  same  restrictions,  in  point  of  trade  and  navi 
gation,  as  if  the  same  were  actually  blockaded  b^ 
hi  j  majesty's  naval  forces,  in  the  most  strict  and 
rigorous  manner  :"  that  "  all  trade  in  articles 
Which  were  the  produce  or  manufacture  of  the 
said  countries  or  colonies,  should  be  deemed  and 
considered  to  Tie  unlawful  :"  but  that  neutral  ves 
sels  shook!  ?ti!J  be  permitted  (o  trade  with 
France  from  certain  free  ports,  or  ihrough 
porfs  and  places  of  the  British  dominions.* 
To  accept  the  lawful  enjoyment  of  a  right, 
as  the  grant  of  a  superior  ;  to  prosecute  a 
JUuvi'ul  commerce  under  the  forms  of  favor  and 
indulgence;  and  to  pay  a  tribute  to  Great-Brit 
ain,  for  the  privilege  of  a  lawful  transit  on  the 
ocean  :  were  concessions,  which  Great  Britain 
was  disposed,  insidiously,  to  exact,  by  an  appeal 
to  the  cupidity  of  individuals,  but  which  the  ti 
nted  States  coulcl  never  yield  ;  consistently  with 
the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  the  nation. 
The  orders  in  council  were,  therefore,  altered  in 


the  orders  in  council  of  the    llth  of  Novem 
ber,  1807, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  55 

this  respect,  at  a  subsequent  period  $#  but  the 
general  ial<-rdiet  of  neuUal  commerce,  applying, 
mere  especially  to  American  commerce?  was  ob 
stinately  maintained;  against  all  the  force  of  rea 
son,  of  remonstrance*  and  of  protestation,  em 
ployed  by  the  American  government,  when  the 
subject  was  presented  to  its  consideration,  by  the 
British  minister  residing  at  Washington.  The 
fact  assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  orders  in  council 
\vas  unequivocally  disowned  j  And  it  was  demon 
strated,  (bat  so  far  from  its  being  true,  "that.  th$ 
United  States  had  acquiesced  in  the  illegal  ope 
ration  of  the  (  crlin  decree,  it  was  not  even  true 
that  at  the  date  of  the  British  orders  of  the  llth 
of  November,  1807,  a  single  application  of  that 
decree  to  th-e  commerce  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  high  seas?  could  have  been  known  to  the 
British  government  ;"  while  the  British  govern 
ment  had  b<  en  officially  informed  by  the  Ameri 
can  minister  at  London,  "  that  explanations,  un- 
contradicted  bv  any  overt  act,  had  been  given  to 
the  American  minister  at  Paris,  which  justified  a 
yeliance  that  the  French  decree  would  not  be  put 
in  force  against  the  United  States  "f 

The  British  orders  of  the  llth  of  November,. 
1807,  were  quickly  followed  by  the  French  de 
cree  of  Milan,  dated  "the  17th  of  December,  1807, 
'"  which  was  said  to  be  resorted  to,  only  m  just 
retaliation  of  th'>  barbarous  system  adopted  bv 
England,"  and  in  which  tbe  denationalizing  ten"- 
dency  of  thr>  ordrrs.  is  made  the  foundation  of  a 
declaration  in  the  decree,  "  that  every  ship  to 

*See  Mr.  Canning's  letter  to  Mr,  Pinkney,  23d  Feb 
ruary,  1808 

fSce  Mr.  Erskine's  letter  to  tfo  secretary  of  state3 
dated  22d  of  February,  1808;  and"  tii-  Answer  of  the 
secretary  of  state,,  dated  the  25th  of  March,  1808, 


54  AMERICAN  EXPOSE, 

whatever  nation  it  might  belong,  that  should  have 
subletted  to  be  searched  by  an  English  ship,  or 
to  a  voyage  to  England,  or  should  have  paid  any 
tax  whatsoever  to  the  English   government,    was 
thereby,  and  lor  that  alone,  declared  to   be   dena 
tionalized,  to  have  forfeited  the  protection   of  its 
sovereign,  and  to  have  become  English  property, 
subject  to  capture  as  good  and  lawful  prize.  :  that 
the  British  Islands  were  placed  in  a  state  of  block 
ade,  both  by    sea  and  land — and   every    ship,  of 
whatever  nation,  or  whatever    the  nature  of  its 
cargo  might  be,  that  sails  from  the  ports  of  Eng 
land,  or  those  of  the  English  colonies,  and  of  the 
countries  occupied  by   English    troops,  and  pro 
ceeding  to  England,  or  to  the  English  colonies, 
or  to  countries  occupied  by  English  troops,  should 
be  good  and  lawful  prize  :  but  the  provisions    of 
the  decree  should  be  abrogated  aud  null,  in   fact, 
as  soon  as  the  English  should  abide  again  by.  the 
principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  which  are,    also, 
the  principles  of  justice  and  honor."*     In   oppo 
sition,  however,  to  the.  Milan  decree,    as   wrell  as 
to  the  Berlin  decree,  the   American   government 
strenuously  and  unceasingly  employed  every   in 
strument  except  t be  instrument  of  war.     It  act 
ed  precisely  towards  France,  as  it  acted  towards 
Great  Britain  on  similar  occasions  ;    but  France 
remained,  for  a  time,  as  insensible  to  the  claims 
of  justice  and  honor,  as  Great  Britain,  each  imi 
tating  the  other,  in  extravagance  of  pretensions? 
ami  in  obstinacy  of  purpose. 

When  the  American  government  received  in 
telligence,  that  the  orders  of  the  llth  of  Novem 
ber,  1807,  had  been  under  the  consideration  of  the 
British  cabinet,  and  were  actually  prepared  for 
promulgation,  it^Jfts  anticipated  that  France,  IB 

*See  the  Milan  decree  of  the   17th  of  December? 

1307, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  55 

a  zealous  prosecution  of  the  retaliatory  warfare, 
would  soon  produce  an  act  of,  at  least,  equal  in 
justice  and  hostility.  The  crisis  existed,  there- 
fare,  at  which  the  United  States  were  compelled 
to  decide  either  to  withdraw  their  seafaring  citi 
zens,  and  their  commercial  wealth  from  the  o- 
eeaa,  or  to  leave  the  interests  of  the  mariner  and 
the  merchant  exposed  to  certain  destruction  ;  or 
to  engage  ia  open  and  active  war,  for  the  protec 
tion  and  defence  of  those  interests.  The  princi 
ples  and  the  habits  of  the  American  government, 
were  still  disposed  to  neutrality  and  peace.  In 
weighing  the  nature  and  the  amount  of  the  ag 
gressions,  which  had  been  perpetrated,  or  which 
were  threatened,  if  there  were  any  preponderance 
to  determine  the  balance,  againsf  one  of  the  bel 
ligerent  powers,  rather  than  the  other,  as  the  ob 
ject  of  a  declaration  of  war;  it  was  againsc 
Great-Britain,  at  least,  upon  the  vital  interests 
of  impressment ;  and  the  obvious  superiority  of 
her  naval  means  of  annoyance.  The  French  de 
crees  were,  indeed,  as  obnoxious  in  their  forma 
tion  and  design  as  the  British  orders ;  but  the 
government  of  France  claimed  and  exercised  no 
right  of  impressment  ;  and  the  maritime  spoli 
ations  of  France  were  comparatively  restricted 
not  only  by  her  own  weakness  on  the  ocean,  but 
by  the  constant  and  pervading  vigilance  of  the 
fleets  of  her  enemy.  The  difficulty  of  selection  ; 
the  indiscretion  of  encountering,  at  once,  both  cf 
the  offending  powers  $  and,  above  all,  the  hope  of 
an  early  return  of  justice,  under  the  dispensations 
of  the  ancient  public  law,  prevailed  in  the  eoua- 
cils  of  the  American  government  $  and  it  was  re 
solved  to  attempt  the  preservation  of  its  neutrali- 
ity  and  its  peace  ;  of  its  citizens,  and  its  resourc 
es;  by  a  voluntary  suspension  of  the  commerce 
and  navigation  of  the  United  States.  It  is  true, 
that  for  the  minor  outrages  committed,  under  th€ 


56  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

pretext  of  the  rule  of  the  war  of  1756,  the 
sens  ©f  every  denomination  had  demanded  from 
their  government,  in  the  year  1805,  protection 
and  redress;  it  is  true,  that  for  the  unparalleled 
enormities  of  1807,  the  citizens  of  every  denom 
ination  again  demanded  protection  and  redress: 
but  it  is  alM),  a  truth,  conclusively  established  by 
every  manifestation  of  the  sense  of  the  American 
people,  as  well  as  of  their  government,  that  any 
honorable  means  of  protection  and  redress,  wers 
preferred  to  the  last  resort  of  arms.  The  Amer 
ican  government  might  honorably  retire,  for  a 
time,  from  a  scene  of  conflict  and  collision  ;  but 
it  could  no  longer,  with  honor,  permit  its  flag  to 
be  insulted,  its  citizens  to  be  enslaved,  and  its 
property  to  be  plundered,  on  the  high  way  of  na 
tions. 

Under  these  impressions,  the  restrictive  system 
of  the  United  States,  was  introduced.  Jn  Decem 
ber,  1807,  an  embargo  was  imposed  upon  all  A- 
rnerican  vessels  and  merchandise  ;*  on  princi 
ples  similar  to  those,  which  originated  and  regu 
lated  the  embargo  law,  authorised  to  be  laid  by 
the  president  of  the  v  nited  Stales,  in  *he  year 
4794  :  hut  soon  afterwards,  in  the  genuine  spirit 
of  the  policy,  that  preserved  the  measuve,  it  was 
declared  by  law.  **  that  in  the  event  of  such  peace, 
or  suspension  of  hostilities,  between  the  belliger- 
ent  powers  of  Furope.  or  such  changes  in  their 
measures  affecting  neutral  comm<  rce,  as  might 
render  that  of  the  United  States  safe,  in  the 
Judgment  of  the  president  of  the  United  States.* 
he  was  authorised  to  suspend  the  embargo,  ia 
whole  or  in  part/'f  The  pressure  of  the  embargo 

*See  the  act  of  congress  passed  the  22d  December 
1807. 
fSee  the  act  of  congress  passed  the  1st  day  of  March* 

1809, 


AMERICAN  EXFOTSE.  sf 

was  thought,  however,  so  serere  upon  every  part 
of  the  conunuaity,that  the  American  government, 
notwithstanding  the  neutral  character  of  the 
measure,  determined  upon  some  relaxation  ;  and, 
accordingly,  the  embargo  being  raised,  as  to  all 
other  nations,  a  system  of  non-intercourse  and 
non-importation  was  substituted  in  March,  1809, 
as  to  Great  Britain  and  France,  whieli  prohibited 
all  -voyages  to  the  British  or  French  dominions* 
and  all  trade  in  articles  of  British  or  French  pro- 
duet  or  manufacture.*  But  still  adhering  to  the 
neutral  and  pacific  policy  of  the  government,  it 
was  declared,  <*  that  the  president  of  the  United 
States  should  be  authorised  in  case  either  France 
or  Great  fin  lain,  should  so  revoke,  or  modify, 
her  edicts,  as  that  they  should  cease  to  violate  the 
neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States,  to  declare 
the  same  by  proclamation  \  after  which  the  trade 
of  the  United  States  might  be  renewed  with  the 
nations  so  doing."-}-  These  appeals  to  (he  justice 
and  the  interests  of  the  belligerent  powers  prov 
ing  ineffectual  ;  and  the  necessities  of  the  country 
increasing,  it  was  finally  resolved  by  the  Ameri 
can  government,  to  take  the  hazards  of  a  war  ; 
to  revoke  its  restrictive  system  \  and  to  exclude 
British  and  French  armed  vessels  front  the  har 
bors  and  waters  of  the  United  States  ;  but.  again, 
emphatically  to  announce,  «  that  in  ease  eh  her 
Great  Britain  or  France  should,  before  the  3d 
of  March  1811,  so  revoke,  or  modify,  her  edicts, 
as  that  they  should  cease  to  violate  the  neutral 
commerce  of  the  United  States;  and  if  the  other 
nation  should  not  within  three  months  thereafter, 
so  revoke,  or  modify,  her  edicts,  in  like  manner," 
the  provisions  of  the  non-intercourse  and  non- 

*"See  the  1 1th  section  cf  the  last  cited  act  of  congress. 
fSee  the  act  of  congress  passed  the  1st  day  of  May, 
1809, 


58  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

importation  law  should,  at  (he  expiration  of  three 
months,  be  revived  against  the  nation  refusing,  or 
neglecting,  to  revoke  or  modify  its  edicts.* 

Jn  (he  course,  which  the  American  government 
had  hitherto  pursued,  relative  to  the  belligerent 
orders  and  decrees,  the  candid  foreigner,  as  well 
as  the  patriotic  citizen,  may  perceive  an  extreme 
solicitude,  for  the  preservation  of  peace  ;  but  in 
the  publicity,  and  impartiality*  of  the  overture, 
that  was  thus  spread  kefoie  the  belligerent  pow 
ers,  it  is  impossible,  that  any  indication  should  be 
found,  of  foreign  influence  or  control.  The  over 
ture  was  urged  upon  both  nations  for  acceptance, 
tit  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same  manner;  nor 
\vas  an  intimation  withheld,  from  either  of  (hem, 
that  "  it  might  be  regarded  by  the  belligerent 
first  accepting  it,  as  a  promise  to  itself,  "and  a 
warning  to  its  enemy. "f  Each  cf  the  nations, 
from  the  commencement  of  the  retaliatory  sys 
tem,  acknowledged,  that  its  measures  were  viola 
tions  of  public  law  y  and  each  pledged  itself  to 
retract  them,  whenever  the  other  should  set  the 
example.:);  Although  the  American  government, 
therefore,  persisted  in  its  remonstrances  against 
the  original  transgressions,  without  regard  to  the 
question  of  the  priority,  it  embraced,  with  eager 
ness,  every  hope  of  reconciling  the  interests  of 
the  rival  powers,  with  the  performance  of  the 
duty  which  they  owed  to  the  neutral  character  of 
the*  United  States:  and  when  the  British  minis 
ter,  residing  at  "Washington,  in  the  year  1809, 
affirmed,  in  terms  as  plain,  and  as  positive,  as 

*See  the  act  of  congress,  passed  the  1st  day  of  Mayy 
1810. 

fSee  the  correspondence  between  the  secretary  of 
state,  and  the  American  ministers  at  London  and  Paris. 

t-See  the  documents  laid  before  congress  from  time 
to  time  by  the  president,  and  printed. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  59 

language  could  supply,  "  that  he  was  authorised 
to  declare,  that  his  Britannic  majesty's  orders  in 
council  of  January  and  November,  1807,  will  have 
been  withdrawn,  as  it  respects  the  United  States,, 
on  the  10th  of  June,  1809,"  the  president  of  the 
United  States  hastened,  with  approved  liberality, 
to  accept  the  declaration  as  conclusive  evidence, 
that  the  promised  fact  would  exist,  at  the  stipula 
ted  period  ;  and,  by  an  immediate  proclamation 
he  announced,  "  that  after  the  10th  of  June  aext, 
the  trade  of  the  United  States  whh  Great  Britain, 
as  suspended  by  the  non-intercourse  law,  and  by 
the  acts  of  congress  laying  and  enforcing  an  em 
bargo,  might  be  renewed."^  The  American  gov 
ernment  neither  asked,  nor  received  from  the 
British  minister,  an  exemplification  of  his  pt  wers  ; 
an  inspection  of  instructions  ;  nor  the  solemnity 
of  an  order  5a  council  :  hut  executed  the  compact 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  in  all  the  sin- 
<  crity  of  its  own  intentions  ;  and  in  all  the  confi 
dence,  which  the  official  act  of  the  representative 
of  his  Britannia  majesty,  was  calculated  to  In 
spire.  The  act  and  the  authority  for  the  act, 
were  however,  disavowed  by  Great  Britain  ;  and 
an  attempt  was  made  by  the  successor  of  Krsk- 
ine,  through  the  aid  of  insinuations,  which  were 
indignantly  repulsed,  to  justify  the  British  rejec 
tion  of  the  treaty  of  1809,  by  referring  to  the  A- 
tncrican  rejection  of  the  treaty  of  1806  ;  forget 
ful  of  the  essential  points  of  difference,  that  the 
British  government,  on  the  former  occasion,  had 
been  explicitly  apprized  by  the  American  negoci- 
ators  of  their  defect  of  power  }  and  that  the  exe- 

*See  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Erskine,  the 
British  minister,  and  the  secretary  of  state,  ©nthe  17th, 
1 3th,  and  19th  of  April  1809;  and  the  president's 
proclamation  of  the  last  date, 


40  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

cut  ion  of  the  projected  treaty  had  not,  OB  either 
side,  been  commenced.* 

After  this  abortive  attempt  to  obtain  a  just  and 
honorable  revocation  of  the  British  orders  ki 
council,  the  United  States  wer«  again  invited  to 
indulge  the  hope  of  safety  and  tranquillity,  when, 
the  minister  of  France  announeed  to  the  Ameri 
can  minister  at  Paris,  that  in  consideration  of  the 
act  of  the  first  of  May,  1809,  by  which  the  eoi> 
gress  of  (he  United  States  "  engaged  to  oppose 
itself  to  that  one  of  the  belligerent  powers,  which 
should  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  rights  of  neu 
trals,  he  was  authorised  to  dee Jare,  that  the  de 
crees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  were  revoked,  and  that 
after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  they  would  cease 
to  have  effect  ;  it  being  understood,  that  in  con 
sequence  of  that  declaration*  the  English  should 
revoke  their  orders  in  council,  and  rcBOimce  the 
new  principles  of  blockade. 'which  they  had  wish 
ed  to  establish  ;  or  that  the  United  States  con 
formably  to  the  act  of  congress,  should  cause 
their  rights  to  be  respected  by  the  English. "f 
This  declaration  delivered  by  the  official  organ 
of  the  government  of  France,  and  in  the  presence, 
as  U  were,  of  the  French  sovereign,  was  of  the 
highest  authority,  according  to  all  the  rules  of 
diplomatic  intercourse  ;  and  certainly,  far  sur 
passed  any  claim  of  credence  which  was  possessed 
by  the  British  minister  residing  at  \Va*Iii  gton, 
when  the  arrangement  of  the  year  1809,  was  ac 
cepted  and  executed  by  the  American  govern 
ment.  The  president  of  the  United  Slates,  there- 
fere,  owed  to  the  consistency  of  his  own  charac 
ter,  and  to  the  dictates  of  a  sincere  impartiality, 

*See  the  correspondence  betwen  the  secretary  of 
stat:-,  and  Mr.  Jackson,  the  British  minister. 

fSce  the  duke-xle  Cadore's  letter  to  Miv  Armstrong^ 
dated  the  5th  of  August,  1810. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  61 

&  prompt  acceptance  ef  (heFreneh  overture  :  and 
accordingly,  the  authoritative  promise,  that  tho 
fact  should  exist  at  the  stipulated  period,  bring 
again  admitted  as  conclusive  evidence  of  its  r:«»st- 
ence,  a  proclamation  was  issued  on  the^d  of  Nov 
ember,  1810,  announcing  **  that  the  edicts  of 
France  had  been  so  revoked,  as  that  they  ceased 
on  the  first  day  of  the  same  month,  to  violate  tho 
neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States  ;  and  that 
all  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  act  of  congress, 
should  then  cease  and  be  discontinued,  in  relation 
to  France  and  her  dependencies."^  That  France, 
from  this  epoch,  refrained  from  all  aggressions  on: 
the  high  seas,  or  even  in  her  own  ports,  upon  th$ 
persons  and  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  never  was  asserted  ;  but  on  tho 
contrary,  her  violeace  and  her  spoliations  have 
been  unceasing  causes  of  complaint.  These  sub 
sequent  injuries,  constituting  a  part  of  the  exist 
ing  reclamations  of  the  United  States,  were,  al 
ways,  however,  disavowed  by  the  French  govern 
ment  ;  whilst  the  repeal  of  the  Berlin  ami  Milan 
decrees  has,  on  every  occasion,  been  affirmed  ; 
insomuch  that  Great  Britain  herself  was,  at  last, 
compelled  to  yield  to  the  evidence  of  the  fact. 

On  the  expiration  of  three  months  from  the 
date  of  the  president's  proelamation,  the  non-in- 
tereourse  and  non-importation  law  was,  of  course, 
to  be  revived  against  Great  Britain,  unices,  dur 
ing  that  period,  her  orders  in  council  should  be  re 
voked.  The  subject  was,  therefore,  most  anxious 
ly  and  most  steadily  pressed  upon  the  justice  and 
magnanimity  of  the  British  government  ;  and  even 
when  the  hope  of  success  expired,  by  the  lapse  of 
the  period  prescribed  in  one  act  of  congress,  the 
United  States  opened  the  door  of  reconciliation  by 

*Sec  the  president's  proclamation  of  the  2d  of  Nov 
ember,  !.  8Idc 

* 


62  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

another  not,  which,  in  the  year  1811,  again  pro 
vided,  that  in  case,  at  any  time,  «  Great  Britain 
should  revoke  ov  modify  her  edicts,  as  (hat  they 
shall  cease  to  violate  the  neutral  commerce  of  the 
United  States  ;  the  president  of  the  United  States 
should  declare  the  fact  by  proclamation  $  and 
that  the  restrictions  previously  imposed,  should 
from  (lie  date  of  such  proclamation,  cease  and  be 
discontinued/**  But  unhappily,  every  appeal  to 
(he  justice  and  magnanimity  of  Great  Britain 
was  now,  as  heretofore,  fruitless  and  forlorn. 
She  had  at  this  epoch,  impressed  from  the  crews 
of  American  merchant  vessels,peaeeahly  navigating 
the  high  seas,  not  less  rhan  six  thousand  mariners, 
who  claimed  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  who  were  denied  all  opportunity  to  verify 
their  claims.  She  had  seized  and  confiscated  the 
commercial  property  of  American  citizens,  to  an 
incalculable  amount.  She  had  united  in  the  enor 
mities  of  France,  to  declare  a  great  portion  of 
the  terraqueous  globe  in  a  state  of  blockade  ; 
chasing  the  American  merchant  ilag  effectually 
from  the  ocean.  She  had  contemptuously  disre 
garded  the  neutrality  of  the  American  territory, 
and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  American  laws,  within 
the  waters  of  the  United  States.  She  was  enjoy 
ing  the  emoluments  of  a  surreptitious  tracle,stained 
with  every  species  of  fraud  and  corruption,  which 
gave  to  the  belligerent  powers,  the  advantages  of 
peace,  while  the  neutral  powers  were  involved  in 
the  evils  of  war.  She  had,  in  short,  usurped  and 
exercised  on  the  water,  a  tyranny  similar  to  that 
which  her  great  antagonist  had  usurped  and  ex 
ercised  upon  the  land.  And,amidst  aJl  these  proofs 
of  ambition  and  avarice,  she  demanded  that  the 
victims  of  her  usurpations  and  her  violence,  should 

*3ee  the  aot  of  congress,  passed  the  2d  of  March, 
1811. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  63 

revere  her  as  the  sole  defender  of  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  mankind. 

When,  therefore,  Great  Britain,  in  manifest 
violation  of  her  solemn  promises,,  refused  to  fol 
low  the  example  of  France,  by -the  repeal  of  her 
orders  in  council,  the  American  government  was 
compelled  to  contemplate  a  resort  to  arms,  as  the 
only  remaining  course  to  be  pursued  for  its  h  01101*9 
its  independence,  and  its  safety.  Whatever  de 
pended  upon  the  United  Slates  themselves,  then 
United  States  had  performed  lor  the  preservation 
of  peace,  in  resistance  of  the  French  decrees,  as 
well  as  of  the  British  orders.  \Vhat  had  been  re 
quired  from  France,  in  its  relation  to  the  neutral 
character  of  the  United  States,  France  had  per 
formed,  by  the  revocation  of  its  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees.  Bat  what  depended  upon  Great  Britain, 
for  the  purposes  of  justice,  in  the  repeal  of  her  or 
ders  in  council,  was  withheld  ;  and  new  evasions 
were  sought,  when  the  old  were  exhausted.  It 
was,  at  one  time,  alledgcd,  that  satisfactory  proof 
was  not  afforded,  that  France  had  repealed  her 
decrees  against  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States  ;  as  if  such  proof  alone  were  wanting  to 
ensure  the  performance  of  the  British  promise.* 
At  another  time,  it  was  insisted,  that  the  repeal 
of  the  French  decrees,  in  their  operation  against 
the  United  States,  in  order  to  authorise  a  demand 
for  the  performance  of  the  British  promise,  D;ust 
be  total,  applying  equally  to  their  internal  and 
external  effects  ;  as  if  the  United  States  had  ei 
ther  the  right,  or  power,  to  impose  upon  France 
the  law  of  her  domestic  institutions.!  And  it  was, 
finally,  insisted,  in  a  despatch  from  lord  Caslle- 
feagh  to  the  British  minister,  residing  at  Washing- 

*See  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Pinkney  and 
the  British  government. 

fSce  the  letters  of  Mr.  Erskine. 


64  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

ton,  in  the  year  1812,  which  was  officially  com 
municated  to  the  American  government,  "  that  the 
^decrees  of  Berlin  ami  Milan  must  not  only  he  re 
pealed  singly  and  specially,  in  relation  to  the  Uni 
ted  States  ;  but  must  be  repealed,  also,  as  to  all 
other  neutral  nations  ;  and  that  in  no  less  extent 
ol4  a  repeal  of  the  French  decrees,  had  the  British 
government  ever  pledged  itself  to  repeal  the  or 
ders  in  council  ;"*  as  if  it  were  incumbent  on  the 
United  States,  not  only  to  assert  her  own  rights, 
but  to  in-come  the  coadjutor  of  the  British  gov 
ernment  in  the  gratuitous  assertion  of  the  right§ 
of  all  other  nations. 

The  congress  of  the  United  Str.tes  could  pause 
no  longer.  Under  a  deep  and  aiHieting  sense  of 
national  wrongs,  and  national  resentments — while 
il.cy  postponed  definitive  measures  with  respect  to 
France,  in  the  expectation  that  the  result  of  un 
closed  discussions,  between  the  American  minis 
ter  at  Paris,  and  the  French  government,  would 
speedily  enable  them  to  decide,  with  greater  ad 
vantage,  on  the  course  due  to  the  rights,  the  inter 
ests,  and  the  honor  of  the  country  ;j  they  pro 
nounced  a  deliberate  and  solemn  declaration  of 
v-rar,  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
on  the  18th  of  June,  1812. 

But,  it  is  in  the  face  of  all  the  facts,  which  have 
been  displayed,  in  the  present  narrative,  that  the 
prince  regent,  by  his  declaration  of  January ,1813, 
describes  the  United  States  as  the  aggressor  in 
the  war.  If  the  act  of  declaring  war,  constitutes, 
in  all  eases,  the  act  of  original  aggression,  the 
United  States  must  submit  to  the  severity  of  re- 

*See  the  correspondence  between  the  secretary  of 
state  and  Mr.  Foster,  the  British  minister,  in  June,  1812. 

fSee  the  president's  message  of  the  1  st  of  June,  1 8 1 2  : 
aiad  the  report  of  the  committee  of  foreign  relations,  to 
wiiom  the  message  was  referred. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  65 

proaeh  :  but  if  the  act  of  declaring  war  may  be 
mere  truly  considered,  as  (he  result  of  long  suf 
fering,  and  necessary  self-defence,  the  America^ 
government  will  stand  acquitted,  i»  the  sight  of 
Heaven,  and  of  the  world.  Have  the  United 
States,  then,  enslaved  the  subjects,  confiscated  the 
properly,  prostrated  the  commerce,  insulted  the 
flag,  OP  "violated  the  territorial  sovereignty  of 
Great  Britain  ?  No  ;  but  in  all  these  respects  the 
United  States  had  sufieml.  for  u  long  period  of 
years,  previously  to  the  declaration  of  war,  the 
contumely  and  outrage  of  the  British  govern 
ment*  It  has  been  said,  too,  as  an  aggravation 
of  the  imputed  aggression,  that  the  United 
States  chose  a- period,  for  their  declaration  of 
war,  when  Grout  Britain  was  struggling  for 
her  ovva  existence,  against  a  power,  which  threat 
ened  to  overthrow  the  independence  of  all  Europe: 
but  it  might  be  more  truly  suid,  that  the  United 
States,  not  acting  upon  choice,  but  upon  compul 
sion,  delayed  the  declaration  of  war,  until  tho 
persecutions  'of  Great  Britain  had  rendered  fur 
ther  delay  destructive  and  disgraceful.  Gnpat 
Britain  had  converted  the  commercial  scenes  of 
American  opulent*;  and  prosperity,  into  scenes  of 
comparative  poverty  and  distress ;  she  had  brought 
the  existence  of  the  United  States  as  an  indepen 
dent  nation, Vintd  question  ;  and,  surely,  it  must 
have  been  indifferent  to  the  United  States,  wheth 
er  tbey  ceased  to  exist  as  an  independent  nation, 
by  her  conduct,  while  she  professed  friendship,  or 
by  her  conduct,  when  she  avowed  enmity  and  re- 
\enge.  Nor  is  it  true,  that  the  existence  of  Great 
Britain  was  in  danger,  at  tjje  epoch  of  the  declar 
ation  of  war.  The  American  government  uni 
formly  entertained  an  opposite  opinion  ;  and,  at 
a!l  times,  saw  more  to  apprehend  for  the  United 
States,  from  her  n«aratim  cower,  tban  from  the 
territorial  power  of  her  enemy.  The  event  has 


£&  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

justified  (he  opinion,  and  the  apprehension.  But 
what  the  United  States  asked,  as  essential  to  their 
welfare,  and  even  as  beneficial  to  the  allies  of 
Great  Britain,  in  the  European  war,  Great  Bri 
tain,  it  is  manifest,  might  hare  granted,  without 
impairing  the  resources  of  her  own  strength,  or 
the  splendor  of  her  own  sovereignty^  for  her  orders 
in  council  have  been  since  revoked  $  not,  it  is  true, 
as  the  performance  of  her  promise,  to  follow,  in 
this  respect,  the  example  of  France,  since  she 
finally  rested  the  obligation  of  that  promise,  upon 
the  repeal  of  the  French  decrees,  as  to  all  nations  j 
and  the  repeal  was  only  as  to  the  United  States  ; 
nor  as  an  act  of  national  justice  towards  the  Uni 
ted  States  ;  but,  simply,  as  an  act  of  domestic 
policy,  for  the  special  advantage  of  her  own 
people. 

The  British  government  has,  also,  described 
the  Avar,  as  a  war  of  aggrandizement  and  con 
quest,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  :  but, 
where  is  the  foundation  for  the  charge  ?  "While 
the  American  government  employed  every  jnerns 
to  dissuade  the  Indians,  even  those  who  lived 
within  the  territory,  and  were  supplied  by  the 
bounty  of  the  United  States,  from  taking  any 
part  in  the  war,3*  the  proofs  were  irresistable, 
that  the  enemy  pursued  a  very  different  course  jf 
and  that  every  precaution  would  be  necessary,  to 
prevent  the  effects  of  an  offensive  alliance,  be 
tween  the  British  troops  and  the  savages,  through 
out  the  northern  frontier  of  the  United  States. — 

*See  the  proceedings  of  the  councils,  held  with  the 
Indians,  during  the  expedition  under  brig.  gen.  Hull  ; 
and  the  talk  delivered  by  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  to  the  Six  Nations,  at  Washington,  on  the  8th 
April,  1813. 

fSee  the  documents  laid  before  congress,  on  the  13th 
June,  18 1J. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  6? 

The  military   oeeupatScn  of  Upper  Canada  was* 
therefore   deemed  indispensable  to  the  safety  of 
that  frontier,  in  the  earliest  movements  of  the 
war,  independent  of  all  views  of  extending  the 
territorial  boundary  of  the  United  States.     But, 
when  war   was  declared,  in  resentment  for  inju 
ries,  which  had   been  suffered  upon  the  Atlantic, 
what  principle  of  public  law,  what  modification  of 
civilized  warfare,  imposed  upon  the  United  States 
the  duty  of  abstaining   from  the  invasion  of  the 
Canadas  ?     It  was  there  alone,  that  the   United 
States  could  place  themselves  upon  equal  footing; 
of  military  force  with  Great  Britain  ;  arid  it  was 
there,  that  they  might  reasonably  encourage  the 
hope  of  being  able,  in  the  prosecution  of  a  lawful 
retaliation,  "  to  restrain  the  violence  of  the  ene 
my,  and  to  retort  'upon  him,  the  evils  of  his  own 
injustice/5     The  proclamations  issued  by  the  A- 
inerican  commanders,  on  entering  Upper  Canada, 
Lave,  however,  been  adduced,  by  the  British  ne- 
gociators  at  Ghent,  as   the  proofs  of  a  spirit   of 
ambition  and  aggrandizement,  on  the  part  of  their 
government.  In  truth,  the  proclamations  were  not 
only   unauthorised  and  disapproved,  but  were  in 
fractions  of  the  positive  instructions,  which  had 
been  given  for  the  conduct  of  the  war  in  Canada. 
When  the  general,  commanding  the  north  western 
army  of  the  United  States,  received,  on  the  24th 
of  June,  1812,   his  first  authority  to   commence 
offensive  operations,  he  was  especially  told,   "he 
must  not  consider  himself  authorised  to  pledge 
the    government  to  the  inhabitants   of  Canada, 
further  than  assurances  of  protection  in  their  per 
sons,  property,  and  rights."     And  on  the  ensuing 
1st  of  August,n  was  emphatically  declared  to  him, 
"  that  it   had   become  necessary,  that  he    should 
not  lose   sight  of  the  instructions  of  the  24*h  of 
June,  as  any  pledge  beyond  that,  was  incompatible 


CS  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

with  the  views  of  the  government."*  Such  was 
tlie  nature  of  the  charge  of  American  ambition 
ami  aggrandizement,  and  such  the  evidence  to 
support  it. 

The  prince  regent  has,  however,  endeavored  to 
add  to  those  unfounded  accusai  ions,  a  stignia,  at 
which  the  pride  of  (he  American  government  re 
volts.  Listening  to  the  fabrications  of  British 
emissaries  ;  gathering  scandals  from  the  abuses 
of  a  free  press  ;  and  misled,  perhaps,  by  the  as 
perities  ef  a  party  spirit,  common  to  alJ  fret?  gov 
ernments  ;  he  affects  to  trace  the  origin  of  tiits 
war  to  "  a  marked  partiality,  in  paliiating  and  as 
sisting  the  aggressive  tyranny  of  France ;  and  to 
the  prevalence  of  such  councils,  as  associated  the 
United  States,  ia  policy,  with  the  government  of 
that  nation."f  The  conduct  of  the  American 
government  is  now  open  to  every  scrutiny  ;  and  its 
vindication  is  inseparable  from*  a  knowledge  of 
the  facts.  All  the  world  must  be  sensible,  indeed, 
that  neither  in  the  general  policy  of  the  late  ruler 
of  France,  nor  in  his  particular  treatment  of  the 
U  iiited  States,  could  there  exist  any  political,  or 
rational  foundation,  for  tlie  sympathies  and  asso 
ciations,  overt  or  clandestine,  which  have  been 
rudely  and  unfairly  suggr&ted.  It  is  equally  ob 
vious,  that  nothing  short  of  the  aggressive  tyr- 
nnny,  exercised  by  Great  Britain  towards  the 
United  States,  could  have  counteracted  and  con 
trolled  those  tendencies  to  peace  and  amity,  which 
derived  their  impulse  from  natural  and  social 
causes  ;  combining  the  affections  and  interests  of 
the  two  nations.  The  American  government, 

*Sce  the  letter  from  the  secretary  of  the  war  depart 
ment,  to  brig.  gen.  Hull,  dated  the  24th  of  June,  and 
the  1st  of  August,  1812. 

fSee  the  British  declaration,  of  the  10th  ®f  January, 
1813. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  6ft 

faithful  to  that  principle  of  public  law,  which  ac 
knowledges  the  authority  of  all  governments  es 
tablished  defacto  ;  and  conforming  its  practice,  in 
this  respect,  to  the  example  of  Europe,  has  never 
contested  the  validity  of  the  governments  succes 
sively  established  in  France  ;  nor  refrained  from 
that  intercourse  with  either  of  them,  which  the 
just  interests  of  the  United  States  required.  But 
the  British  cabinet  is  challenged  to  produce,  from 
the  recesses  of  its  secret,  or  of  its  public  archives, 
a  single  instance  of  unworthy  concessions,  or  of 
political  alliance  and  combination,  throughout  the 
intercourse  of  the  United  States,  with  the  revol 
utionary  rulers  of  France.  \Vas  it  the  influence  of 
French  councils,  that  induced  the  American  gov 
ernment  to  resist  the  pretentious  of  France,  in 
1793,  and  to  encounter  her  hostilities  in  1798  I 
that  led  to  the  ratification  of  the  British  treaty 
in  1795  ;  to  the  British  negociation  in  1805,  and 
to  the  convention  of  the  British  minister  in  1809  I 
that  dictated  the  impartial  overtures,  which  were 
made  to  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  to  France, 
during  the  whole  period  of  the  restrictive  system  ? 
that  produced  the  determination  to  avoid  making 
atiy  treaty,  even  a  treaty  of  commerce,  with 
France,  until  the  outrage  of  the  Rambouiilet  de 
cree  was  repaired  ?#  that  sanctioned  the  repeated 
and  urgent  efforts  of  the  American  government, 
to  put  an  end  to  the  war,  almost  as  soon  as  it  was 
declared  ?  or  that,  finally,  prompted  the  explicit 
communication,  which,  in  pursuance  of  instruc 
tions,  was  made  by  the  American  minister,  at  St. 
Petersburg!!,  to  the  court  of  Russia,  stating, 
"  that  the  principal  subjects  of  discussion,  which 
had  long  been  subsisting  between  the  United 

*  See  the  instructions  from  the  secretary   of  state   to 
the  American  minister  at  Paris,  dated  the  .8 9th    May, 

1813. 


TO  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

Stales  and  France,    remained   uns**"1  fl  ;    tbfit 
there  was   no  immediate    pro*p:  t    thece 

would  be  a  satisfactory  seUieui.  -.*KI  ;    but 

that,  \vbatever  the  event,  in  thai  *  might  he, 

it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  govc- •**  aent  of  the 
United  States  to  enter  into  any  snore  iatmiate  con 
nexions  with  France  $  that  f lie  government  of  the 
United  States  did  not  anticipate  any  event  what 
ever,  that  could  prod  nee  thateiiVci;  and  that  t.h« 
American  minister  was  the  isioro  happy  to  find 
himself  authorized  by  his  government  to  an  w 
this  intention,  as  different  representations  of  their 
views  had  been  widely  circulated,  as  well  in  Ku- 
rope,  as  in  America."*  But,  while  every  act  of 
the  American  government  thus  falsities  the  charge 
of  a  subserviency  to  the  policy  of  France,  it  may 
be  justly  remarked,  that  of  ail  the  governments, 
maintaining  a  necessary  relation  and  intercourse 
with  that  nation,  from  the  commencement  to  (he 
recent  termination  of  the  revolutionary  establish 
ments*  it  has  happened  that  the  government  of 
the  United  States  has  least  exhibited  murks  of 
condescension  and  concession  to  the  successive  ru 
lers.  Jt  is  for  Great  Britain,  more  particularly 
as  an  accuser,  to  examine  and  explain  the  consist 
ency  of  the  reproaches,  which  she  has  uttered  a- 
gainst  (ho  United  States,  with  the  course  of  her 
own  conduct ;  with  her  repeated  ncgociatioos* 
during  the  republic/an,  as  well  as  during  the  impe 
rial  sway  of  France  j  with  her  solicitude  to  make 
and  propose  treaties  :  with  her  interchange  of 
commercial  benefits,  so  irreconcilable  to  a  state  of 
war;  with  the  almost  triumphant  entry  ©f  a 
French  ambassador  into  her  capital,  amidst  the 
acclamations  of  the  populace  ;  and  with  the  pros- 

*See  Mr.  Monroe's  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  dated  the 
1st  of  July,  1812  ;  and  Mr.  Adams'  letter  to  Mr.  Mon 
roe,  dated' the  1  Uh  of  December,  13 i2. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  n 

instituted  by  the  orders  of  the  king  of 
Great  Britain  himself,  in  the  highest,  court  of 
criminal  jurisdiction  in  his  kingdom,  tepurnsli  the 
printer  of  a  gazette,  for  publishing  a  libel  ot>  the 
conduct  and  character  of  the  late  ruler  of  France  ! 
Whatever  may  be  the  source  of  these  symptoms, 
however  they  may  indicate  a  subservient  policy, 
such  symptoms  have -never  occurred  in  the  Unit 
ed  States,  throughout  the  imperial  government  of 
France. 

The  conduct  of  the  United  States,  from  the 
moment  of  declaring  the  war,  will  serve,  as  well 
as  their  previous  conduct,  to  rescue  thorn  from 
the  unjust  reproaches  of  Great  Britain.  When 
war  was  declared,  the  orders  in  council  had  been 
maintained,  with  inexorable  hostility,  until  a  thou 
sand  American  vessels,  with  their  cargoes,  had 
been  seized  and  confiscated*  under  their  operation  ; 
the  British  minister  at  Washington  had,  with  pe 
culiar  solemnity,  announced  that  the  orders  would 
yiot  be  repealed,  but  upoa  conditions,  which  the 
American  government  had  not  the  right,  nor  the 
power,  to  fulfil ;  and  the  European  war,  which 
had  raged,  with  little  intermission  for  twenty 
years,  threatened  an  indefinite  continuance.  Un 
der  these  circumstances,  a  repeal  of  the  orders, 
and  a  cessation  of  the  injuries,  which  they  pro 
duced,  were  events  beyond  all  rational  anticipa 
tion.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  orders,  un 
der  the  influence  of  a  parliamentary  enquiry  into 
their  effects  upon  the  trade  awd  manufactures  of 
Great  Britain,  were  provisionally  repealed  on  the 
23d  of  June,  1812,  a  ifeV?  days  subsequent  to  tho 
American  declaration  of  war.  If  this  repeal  had 
been  made  known  to  the  United  Slates,  before 
their  resort  to  arms,  the  repeal  would  have  arrest 
ed  it ;  and  the t  cause  of  war  being  removed,  the 
other  essential  cause,  the  practice  of  impress 
ment,  would  have  beca  tke  subject  of  renewed  ne- 


12  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

gociation,  under  the  auspicious  influence  of  a  par 
tial,  yet  important  act  of  reconciliation.  But  the 
declaration  of  \var,  having  announced  the  prac 
tice  of  impressment,  as  a  principal  cause,  peace 
could  only  be  the  result  of  an  express  abandon 
ment  of  the  practice ;  of  a  suspension  of  the 
practice  for  the  purposes  of  negociation  ;  or  of  a 
cessation  of  actual  sufferance,  in  consequence  of 
a  pacification  in  Europe,  which  would  deprive 
Great  Britain  of  every  motive  for  continuing  the 
practice. 

Hence,  when  early  intimations  were  given,  from 
Halifax  and  from  Canada,  of  a  disposition,  on  the 
part  of  the  local  authorities,  to  enter  into  an  ar 
mistice,  the  power  of  those  authorities  was  so 
doubtful,  the  objects  of  the  armistice  were  so  lim 
ited.  a?-»d  the  immediate  advantages  were  so  en 
tirely  on  the  side  of  the  enemy,  that  the  Ameri 
can  government  could  not.  consistently'  with  its 
duty,  embrace  tke  propositions.*  But  some  hope 
of  an  amicable  adjustment  was  inspired,  when  a 
communication  was  received  from  admiral  War 
ren,  in  September,  1812,  stating  that  he  was  com 
manded  by  his  government,  to  propose  on  the  one 
band  "  that  the  goverament  of  the  United  States 
should  instantly,  recall  their  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal  against  British  ships,  together  with 
all  orders  and  instructions  for  any  acts  of  hostili 
ty  whatever,  against  the  territories  of  his  maj 
esty,  or  the  persons  and  property  of  his  subjects  ;" 
and  to  promise,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Amer 
ican  government  acquiesced  in  the  preceding  prop- 

*See  letters  from  the  department  of  state  to  Mr. 
Russell,  dated  the  9th  and  10th  of  August,  1812,  and 
Mr.  Graham's  memorandum  of  a  conversation  with 
Mr.  Baker,  the  British  secretary  of  legation  enclosed 
in  the  last  letter.  See  also,  Mr.  Monroe's  letter  to  Mr. 
Russell,  dated  the  2 let  of  August,  1812, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  73 

eskion,  that  instructions  should  be  issued  fo  the 
British  squadrons,  to  discontinue  hostilities  &» 
gainst  the  United  States  and  tbeir  citizens.  This 
overture,  however,  was  subject  to  a  further  qual 
ification,  "  that  should  the  America*)  government 
accede  to  the  proposal  for  terminating  hostilities, 
the  British  admiral  was  authorised  to  arrange 
with  the  American  government,  as  to  the  revoca 
tion  of  the  laws,  which  interdict  the  commerce 
and  ships  of  war  of  Great  .Britain  from  the  har 
bors  and  waters  of  the  United  States  ;  but  that 
in  default  of  such  revocation,  within  the  reason 
able  period  to  be  agreed  upon,  the  orders  in  coun 
cil  would  be  revived."*  The  American  govern 
ment,  at  once,  expressed  a  disposition  to  embrace 
the  general  proposition  for  a  cessation  of  hostil 
ities,  with  a  view  to  negotiation  $  declared  that 
no  peace  eould  be  durable,  unless  the  essential  ob 
ject  of  impressment  was  adjusted  ;  and  offered  as 
the  basis  of  the  adjustment,  to  prohibit  the  em 
ployment  of  British  subjects  in  tho  naval  or  com 
mercial  service  of  the  United  States  j  but  adher 
ing  to  its  determination  of  obtaining  a  relief  from 
actual  sufferance,  the  suspension  of  the  practice 
of  impressment,  pending  the  proposed  armistice, 
was  deemed  a  neeessary  consequence;  for  "  it 
could  not  be  presumed,  while  the  parties  were  en 
gaged  in  a  negotiation  to  adjust  amicably  this 
important  difference,  that  the  United  States  would 
admit  the  right,  or  acquiesce  in  the  practice,  of 
the  opposite  party  ;  or  that  Great  Britain  would 
be  willing  to  restrain  her  eruizers  from  a  prac 
tice,  which  would  have  the  strongest  effect  to  de 
feat  the  negoeiation."f  So  just,  so  reasonable, 

*See  the  letter  of  acluiii  ai  Warren  to  the  secretary 
of  state,  dated  at  Halifax,  the  20th  of  September,  1812. 

fSeethe  letter  of  Mr.  Monroe  to  admiral  Warren, 
dated  the  37th  of  October,  1812. 

G 


7*  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

so  indispensable,  a  preliminary,  without  which  the 
citizens  .of  the  United  States,  navigating  the  high 
seas,  would  not  be  placed,  by  the  armistice,  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain, 
admiral  Warren  was  not  authorised  to  accept  $ 
and  the  effort  at  an  amicable  adjustment,  through 
that  channel,  was  necessarily  abortive. 

But  long  after  the  overture  of  the  British  ad 
miral  was  made  (a  few   days,   indeed,   after  the 
declaration  of  .war)    the  reluctance  with  which 
the  United  States  had  resorted  to  arms,  was  man 
ifested  by  the  steps  taken  to   arrest  the   progress 
of  hostilities,  and  to  hasten  a  restoration  of  peace. 
On  the  26th  of  June,  1812,  the  American  charge 
d'affaires,  at  London,  was  instructed  to  make  the 
proposal  of  an  armistice   to  the  British  govern 
ment,  which  might  lead  to  an  adjustment   of  all 
differences,  on  the  single  condition,  in  the  event  of 
the  orders  in  council  being  repealed,  that  instruc 
tions  should  be  issued,  suspending  the  practice  of 
impressment  during  the  armistice.     This  proposal 
was  soon  followed  by  another,  admitting,  instead 
of  positive  instructions,  an  informal   understand 
ing  between  the  two  government  son  the  subject.^ 
Both  of  these  proposals  were  unhappily  rejected.f 
And  when  a  third,  which  seemed  to  have  no  plea 
for  hesitation,  as  it  required  no  other  prelimina 
ry,  than  that  the  American  minister  at  London 
should  find  in  the  British  government,  a   sincere 
disposition  to  accommodate  the  difference,  relative 
to  impressment,  on  fair  conditions,   was   evaded, 
it  was  obvious,  that  neither  a  desire  of  peace,  nor 

*See  the  letters  from  the  secretary  of  state  to  Mr. 
Russell,  dated  the  26th  of  June,  and  the  27th  of  July, 
1812. 

fSee  the  correspondence  between    Mr.  Russell  and 
lord.  Castlereagh,  dated  August  and  September,  1812. 
—and  Mr.  Russell's  letters  to  the  secretary  of  state, 
dated  September,  1812. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  » 

a  spirit  of  conciliation,  influenced  the  councils  of 
Great  Bjitain. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  American   gov 
ernment  had  no  choice,  hut  to  invigorate  the  war  ; 
and  jet  it  has  never  lost  sight  of  the  object  of  all 
just  "wars,  a  just  peace.     The  emperor   of  Russia 
having  offered  his  mediation    to  accomplish    that 
object,  it  was  instantly  and  cordially  accepted  by 
the  American  government  5*  but  it   was  peremp 
torily  rejected  by  the  British   government.     The 
emperor,  in  his  benevolence,  repeated   his   invita 
tion  ;  the  British  government   again    rejected   it. 
At  last,  however,  Great  Britain,  sensible    of   the 
reproach,  to  which  such  conduct  would  expose  her 
throughout  Europe,  offered  to  the  American  gov 
ernment  a  direct  negotiation   for  peace,  and  the 
offer  was  promptly  embraced  ;  with  perfect  con 
fidence,  that   the   British   government   would  be 
equally  prompt  in  giving   effect  to  fe  own  propo 
sal.     But  such  was  not  the  design  or  the  course  of 
that  government.      The   American  envoys    were 
immediately    appointed,  and  arrived  at  Gotten- 
burgh,  the  destined  scene  of  negociation,   on   the 
llth  of  April,  1814*,  as  soon  as  the  season  admit 
ted.     The  British  government,  though  regularly 
informed,  that  no  time  would  be  lost,  on  the  part 
«f  the  United  States,  suspended  the  appointment 
of  its  envoys,  until  the  actual  arrival  of    the    A- 
ineriean  envoys  should  be  formally  communicated. 
This  pretension,  however  novel  and  inauspicious, 
was  not  permitted  to  obstruct  the  path  to   peace. 
The  British  government  next  proposed  to  transfer 
the   negociation  from    Gottenburgh    to    Ghent, 
This  change,  also,  notwithstanding  the  necessary 
delay,  was  allowed.     The  American  envoys  arriv 
ing  at  Ghent  on  the  24th  of  June,   remained  in  a 
mortifying  state  of  suspense  and  expectation   for 

*See  the  correspo^depce  between  Mr,  Monroe  and  Mr. 
D*schkoff,  in  Mircfe,  1313. 


76  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

the  arrival  of  the  British  envoys  until  the  6th  of 
August.  And  from  the  period  of  opening  the  ne- 
gociations,  to  the  date  of  the  lust  despatch  of  the 
31st  of  October,  it  hag  been  seen  that  the  whele 
of  the  diplomatic  skill  of  the  British  government 
Isas  consisted  in  consuming  time,  without  ap 
proaching  any  conclusion.  The  pacification  of 
Paris  had  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  placed  at  the 
disposal  of  the  British  government  a  great  naval 
and  military  force  \  the  pride  and  passions  of  the 
nation  were  artfully  excited  against  the  United 
States  ;  and  a  war  of  desperate  and  barbarous 
character  was  planned,  at  the  very  moment  that 
American  government,  finding  its  maritime 
citizens  relieved  by  the  course  of  events,  frcrn 
actual  sufferance,  under  the  practice  of  impress 
ment,  had  authorised  its  envoys  to  wave  those 
stipulations  upon  the  subject,  which  might  other 
wise  have  bee:.*  indispensable  precautions. 

Uithertotbe  Asnerican  government  has  shewn 
the  justice  of  its  cause  ;  its  respeet  for  the  rights 
of  other  nations  ;  and  its  inherent  love  of  peace. 
But  the  scenes  oT  war  will  also  exhibit  a  striking 
contrast,  between  the  conduct  of  the  United 
States  ami  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain.  The 
same  insidious  policy  which  taught  the  Prince 
Regent  to  describe  the  American  government  as 
the  aggressor  in  the  war,  has  induced  the  Brkisli 
government  (clouding  the  daylight  truth  of  the 
transaction)  to  call  the  atrocities  of  the  British 
fleet  and  armies,  a  retaliation  upon  tfce  example  of 
the  American  troops  in  Canada.  The  United 
States  tender  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  civilized 
world  against  the  fabrication  of  such  a  charge  ; 
and  they  vouch,  in  support  of  their  appeal,  the 
known  morals,  habits  and  pursuits  of  their  peo 
ple  $  the  character  of  their  civil  and  political  in 
stitutions  \  and  the  whole  career  of  their  navy 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  77 

and  their  army,  as  humane  as  it  is  brave.  Upon 
what  pretext  did  the  British  admiral,  on  the  18th 
of  August,  1814,  announce  his  determination, 
«  to  destroy  and  lay  waste  sueh  towns  and  dis 
tricts  upon  the  coast  as  might  he  f>utid  assaila 
ble  ?"*  Jt  was  the  pretext  of  a  request  from  the 
governor-general  of  the  Canadas,  for  aid  to  carry 
into  effect  measures  of  retaliation  ;  while,  in  fact, 
the  barbarous  nature  of  the  war  had  been  delib 
erately  settled  and  prescribed  by  the  British  cab- 
inet.  What  could  have  been  the  foundation  of 
sueh  a  request  ?  The  outrages  tmcl  the  irregular 
ities,  which  too  often  occur  during  a  state  of  na 
tional  hostilities,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  civ 
ilized  warfare,  are  always  to  be  lamented,  disa 
vowed,  and  repaired  by  a  just  and  honorable  gov 
ernment  \  but  if  disavowal  be  made,  and  if  rep 
aration  be  offered,  there  is  no  foundation  for  re 
taliatory  violence.  "  Whatever  unathorised  ir- 
rrg'ularity  may  have  been  committed  by  any  of 
the  troops  of  the  United  Stales,  the  American 
government  has  been  ready,  upon  principles  of 
sacked  and  eternal  obligation,  to  disavow,  and  as 
fai1  as  it,  might  be  practicable  to  repair."!  In  ev-» 
ory  known  instance  (and  they  are  few)  the  offend 
ers  hare  been  subjected  to  the  regular  investiga 
tion  of  a  unitary  tribunal  ;  and  an  officer,  coro- 
HwmSiHg  u  party  of  stragglers,  who  were  guilty 
of  unworthy  excesses,  was  immediately  dismis 
sed,  without  the  form  of  a  ti?ial,  for  not  prevent- 
3:u*  (hose  excesses.  The  destruction  of  the  vil 
lage  of  Newark,  adjacent  to  Fort  George,  on  the 
10th  of  December.  1813,  was  long  subsequent  to 
tiie  pillage  and  conflagration  ^committed  on  the 

*See  admiral  Cochrane's  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe,  cfated 
the  18th  of  August,  1814  ;  and  Mr.  Monroe's  answer  of 
the  6th  September,  1814. 

!See  the  letter  from  the  secretary  at  war  to  brigadier 
general  M'Lure,  dated  the  4th of  October,  18  IS, 


78  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

shores  of  the  Chesapeake,  throughout  the  sum 
mer  of  the  same  year  ;  and  might  fairly  have 
been  alleged  as  a  retaliation  for  those  outrages; 
but,  in  fact,  it  was  justified  by  the>  American 
commander,  who  ordered  it,  on  the  ground,  that 
it  became  necessary  to  the  military  operations  at 
that  place  ;*  while  the  American  government,  as 
soon  as  it  heard  of  the  act,  on  the  6th  of  January, 
181-i,  instructed  the  general  commanding  the 
northern  army,  "  to  disavow  the  conduct  of  the 
officer  who  committed  it,  and  to  transmit  to  gov 
ernor  Prevost,  a  copy  of  the  order,  under  color 
of  which  that  officer  had  acted. "f  This  disa 
vowal  was  accordingly  communicated  ;  and  on 
the  10th  of  February,  1814,  governor  Prevost 
answered,  "  that  it  had  been  with  great  satisfac 
tion,  he  had  received  the  assurance,  that  the  per 
petration  of  the  burning  of  the  town  of  Newark, 
was  both  unauthorised  by  the  American  govern 
ment,  and  abhorrent  to  every  American  feeling  ; 
that  if  any  outrages  had  ensued  the  wanton  and 
unjustifiable  destruction  of  Newark,  passing  the 
bounds  of  just  retaliation,  they  were  to  be  at 
tributed  to  the  influence  of  irritated  passiens,  on 
the  part  of  the  unfortunate  sufferers  by  that 
event,  which,  in  a  state  of  active  warfare,  it  has 
iiot  been  possible  altogether  to  restrain  ;  and  that 
it  was  as  little  congenial  to  tbe  disposition  of  his 
isajesty's  government,  as  it  was  to  that  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  deliberately  to  a- 
dopt  aisy  policy,  which  had  for  its  object  the  de 
vastation  of  private  property.'^  But  the  disa- 

*General  M'Lure's  letters  te  the  secretary  at  war,  da^ 
ted  December  10  and  53, 1813. 

fSee  the  letter  from  the  secretary  at  war  to  major- 
general  Wilkinson,  dated  the  26th  of  January,  1814, 

£See  the  letter  of  major  general  Wilkinson  to  sir 
GesrgePrevest,  dated  the  28th  of  January,  1814;  and 
the  answer  of  sir  Geo.  Frevost  on  the  10th  Feb»  1814, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  79 

yowal  of  the  American  government  was  not  the 
only  expiation  of  the  offence  committed  by  its  of 
ficer  ;  for  the  British   government  assumed  the 
province  ©f  redress  in  the  indulgence  of  its  own 
vengeance.    A   few   days  after  the  burning  af 
Newark,  the  British  and  Indian  troops  crossed  the 
Niagara  for  this   purpose ;    they   surprised   and 
seized  Fort  Niagara,  and  put  its  garrison   to   the 
sword  ;  they    burnt   the  villages    of  iLewiston, 
Manchester,  Tusearora,  Baffalo  and  Black  Eock  ; 
slaughtering  and  abusing  the  unarmed   inhabi 
tants  ;  until,  in    shert,  they  had  laid   waste  the 
whole  of  the  Niagara  frontier,   levelling  every 
house  and  every  fcut,  and  dispersing,  beyond  tho 
means  of  shelter,  in  the  extremity  of  winter,  the 
male  andtue  female,  the  old  and  the  young.     Sir 
George  Prevost  himself   appears   to  have   been 
sated  with  the  ruin  and  the  havoc  which  had  been 
thus  inflicted.     In  his  proclamation  of   the  12th 
of  January,  1814,  he  emphatically  declared,  that 
for  tho  burning  of  Newark,   «  the  opportunity  of 
punishment  had  occured,  and  a  full   measure  of 
retaliation  had  taken  place  :"  and  "  that   it  was 
not  his  intention  to  pursue   further  a  system  of 
warfare,  so  revolting  to  his  own  feelings,  and  so 
little  congenial  to  the   British  character,   unless 
the  future  measures  of  the  enemy  should  compel 
him  again  to  resort  to  it.%9^     Nay,  with    this   an- 
SAver  to  the  American  general,  already  mentioned, 
he  transmitted  "  a  copy  of  that  proclamation,  as 
expressive  of  the  determination,  as  to  his  future 
line  of  conduct ;  and  added,  « that  he  was  happy 
to  learn,  that  there  was  no  probability,    that    any 
measures  on  the  part  of  the  American  govern 
ment  would   oblige    him  to  depart    from    it."f 

*See  sir  George  Prevost's  proclamation,  dated  at  Que 
bec,  the  12th  of  January  1814. 

f  See  the  letter  of  sir  George  Prevost  to  general  Wil 
kinson,  dated  the  10th  of  February,  1814  ;  and  the  Brit 
ish  general  orders,  of  the  22d  of  'February,  1814. 


80  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

Where,  then,  shall  we  search  for  the  foundation 
of  the  call  upon  the  British  admiral,  to  aid  the 
governor  of  Canada  in  measures  of  retaliation  ? 
Great  Britain  forgot  the  principle  of  retaliation, 
when  her  orders  in  council  were  issued  against 
the  unoffending  neutral,  in  resentment  of  outrage* 
committed  by  her  enemy  ;  and  surely,  she  had 
again  forgotten  the  same  principle,  when  she 
threatened  an  unceasing  violation  of  the  laws  of 
civilized  warfare,  in  retaliation  for  injuries  which 
never  existed,  or  which  the  American  govern 
ment  explicitly  disavowed,  or  which  had  been  al 
ready  avenged  hy  her  own  arms,  in  a  manner  and 
a  degree  cruel  and  unparalleled.  The  American 
government,  after  all,  has  not  hesitated  to  declare, 
that  "  for  the  reparation  of  injuries,  of  whatever 
natare  they  may  he,  not  sanctioned  by  the  law  of 
nations,  which  the  military  or  naval  force  of  ei 
ther  power  might  have  committed  against  the 
other,  it  would  always  be  ready  to  enter  into  re 
ciprocal  arrangements  ;  presuming  that  the  Brit 
ish  government  would  neither  expect  nor  propose 
any  which  were  not  reripro 

It  is  now,  however,  pro]*;  .onine  the  char 

acter,  of  the  warfare,  which.  Great  Britain  has 
waged  against  the  United  States,  in  Europe,  it' 
has  already  been  market,  with  astonishment  au4 
indignation,  as  a  warfare  of  the  tomahawk,  the 
/sca!ping  knife  and  the  torch  ;  as  a  v/arfare?incom- 
patibie  with  the  usages  of  civilized  nations  :  as  a 
warf&rejthat. disclaiming  all  moral  i»f!  tun  GO, inflicts 
an  outrage  upon  social  prder,and gives  a  shock  to  the 
elements  of  humanity.  All  beili Cerent  nations  can 
form  alliances  with  the  savage,  the  African,  and 
the  blood-hound  :  hut  what  civilized  nation  has 
selected  these  auxiliaries  hi  its  hostilities  ?  It 
does  not  require  the  fleets  and  armies  pf  Great 
Britain  to  lay  waste  an  open  country  j  to  burn 

*See  Mr.  Monroe's  letter  to  admiral  Cochrar.c,  datel 
the  6th  of  September, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  81 

unfortified  towns,  or  unprotected  villages ;  nor  to 
plunder  the  merchant,  the  farmer,  and  the  planter 
of  his  stores — these  exploits  may  easily  be  a- 
chieved  by  a  single  cruiser,  er  a  petty  privateer  ; 
but  when  have  such  exploits  been  performed  on 
the  coasts  of  the  continent  of  Europe,  or  of  the 
British  islands,  by  the  naval  and  military  force  of 
any  belligerent  power  ;  or  when  have  they  been 
tolerated  by  any  honorable  government,  as  th$ 
predatory  enterprise  of  armed  individuals  ?  Nor, 
is  the  destruction  of  the  public  ^edifices,  which  a- 
dorn  the  metropolis  of  a  eouairy,  aod  serve  to 
coftimemorate  the  taste  and  science  of  the  age, 
beyond  the  sphere  of  action  of  the  vilest  ineea- 
diary,  as  well  as  of  the  most  triumphant  conquer 
or.  It  cannot  be  forgotten,  indeed,  that  in  the 
course  of  ten  years  past,  the  capitals  of  the  prin 
cipal  powers  of  Europe  have  been  conquered,  and 
occupied  alternately,  by  the  victorious  armies  of 
each  other  ;#  and  yet  there  has  been  no  instance 
of  a  conflagration  of  the  palaces,  the  temples  or 
the  halls  of  justice.  No:  such  examples  have 
proceeded  from  Great  Britain  alone :  a  nation  so 
elevated  in  its  pride;  sa  awful  in  its  power;  and 
so  affected  is  its  tenderness  for  the  liberties  of 
mankind !  The  charge  is  severe  ;  but  let  the  facts 
be  adduced. 

1.  Great  Britain  has  violated  the  principles  of 
social  law,  by  insidious  attempts  to  excite  the  cit 
izens  of  the  United  States  into  acts  of  contuma 
cy,  treason,  and  revolt  against  their  government. 
For  instance  : 

No  sooner  had  the  American  government  im 
posed  the  restrictive  system  upon  its  citizens,  to 
escape  from  the  rage  and  the  depredation  of  the 
belligerent  powers,  than  the  British  government* 
then  professing  amity  towards  the  United  States, 

fSee  Mr.  Monroe's  letter  to  admiral  Cochrane,  dated 
the  6th  of  Sept.  1814. 


82  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

issued  an  order,  which  was,  ?.  i  effect,  an  invitation 
to  the  American  citizens  to  break  the  laws  of 
their  country,  uiider  a  pu  in  promise  of  British 
protection  and  patronage,  ••  10  all  vessels  which 
should  engage  in  an  liliuii  trade,  without  bearing 
the  customary  ship's  doruinents  and  papers/"* 

Again  :  During  a  period  of  peace,  between  the 
United  States  and  Great- Britain,  in  the  year 
4809,  the  governor  general  of  the  Canadas  em 
ployed  an  agent  f  who  had  previously  been  engag 
ed  in  a  similar  service,  with  the  knowledge  and 
approbation  of  the  British  cabinet)  "  on  a  secret 
and  confidential  mission,"  into  the  United  States, 
declaring,  "  that  there  was  no  doubt,  that  his  a- 
ble execution,  of  such  a  mission,  would  give  him 
a  claim,  not  only  on  the  governor  general,  but  on 
his  majesty's  ministers." — The  object  of  the  mis 
sion  was  to  ascertain,  whether  there  existed  a  dis 
position  on  the  part  of  the  citizens,  "  to  bring  a- 
bout  a  separation  of  the  eastern  states  from  the 
general  union  ;  and  how  far,  in  such  an  event, 
they  would  look  up  to  Kogland  far  assistance,  or 
be  disposed  to  enter  into  a  connection  with  her." 
The  agent  was  instructed  "  to  insinir^e,  tbat  if 
any  of  the  citizens  should  wish  to  c  ,er  into  a 
communication  with  the  British  government, 
through  the  governor  genera!,  he  was  authorised 
to  receive  such  communication ;  and  that  h© 
would  safely  transmit  it  to  the  governor  gene 
ral."!  He  was  accredited  by  a  formal  instrument, 
under  the  seal  and  signature  of  the  governor  gen 
eral,  to  be  produced,  "  if  he  saw  good  ground 
for  expecting:  that  the  doing  so  might  lead  to 
a  more  confidential  communication,  than  he 

*Ste  the  instructions  to  the  commanders  of  British  ships 
©f  war  and  privateers,  dated  the  llth  of  April,  1808. 

f See  the  letter  of  Mr.  Ryland,  the  secretary  of  the 
governor  general,  to  Mr.  Henry,  dated  the  26tk  of  Jan 
uary,  1809. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  83 

otherwise  look  for  $"  and  he  was  furnish 
ed  with  "  a  cypher  for  carrying  on  the  secret 
correspondence.5^  The  virtue  and  patriotism 
of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  superi 
or  to  the  arts  and  corruption,  employed  in  this  se 
cret  and  confidential  mission,  if  it  ever  was  dis 
closed  to  any  of  them  ;  and  the  mission  itself  ter 
minated,  as  soon  as  the  arrangement  with  Mr, 
Erskine  was  announced. f  But,  in  the  act  of  re 
calling  the  secret  emissary,  he  was  informed, 
"  that  the  whole  of  his  letters  were  transcribing 
to  be  sent  home,  where  they  could  4jot  fail  of 
doing  him  great  credit,  and  it  was  hoped  they 
might  eventually  contribute  to  his  permanent  ad- 
vaQtage.*^  To  endeavor  to  realize  that  hope,  the 
emissary  proceeded  to  London  ;  all  the  cireum- 
stauees  of  his  mission  were  made  known  to  the 
British  minister  ;  his  services  were  approved  and 
acknowledged  ;  and  he  was  sent  to  Canada,  for  a 
reward  ;  with  a  recommendatory  letter  from  lord 
Liverpool  to  sir  George  Prevost,  *'  stating  bis 
lordship's  opinion  of  the  ability  and  judgment 
which  Mr.  Henry  had  manifested  on  the  occa 
sions  mentioned  in  his  memorial,  (Iiis  secret  and 
confidential  missions.)  and  of  the  benefit  the  pub 
lic  service  must  derive  from  his  active  employ 
ment,  in  any  public  situation,  in  which  sir  George 
Prevost  might  think  proper  to  place  him.$  The 
world  will  judge  upon  these  faets,  and  the  rejec 
tion  of  a  parliamentary  call,  for  the  production 
of  the  papers  relating  to  them,  what  credit  is 
dae  to  the  prince  regent's  assertion,  <•  that  Mr, 

*See  the  letter  of  sir  James  Craig,  to  Mr.  Henry,  dat 
ed  Feb.  6,  1809. 

fSee  the  same  letter,  and  Mr.  Ryland's  letter  of  the 
26th  of  January,  1809. 

tSee  Mr.  Ry land's  letter,  dated  the  26th  of  June,  1809, 

§See  the  letter  from  lord  Liverpool  to  .sir  George  Pre* 
vest,  dated  the  ifiih  of  Sept.  1811, 


84  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

Henry's  mission  was  undertaken)  without  the  aa- 
tberity  OP  even  knowledge  of  his  majesty's  gov 
ernment.'5  The  first  mission  was  certainly 
known  to  the  British  government,  at  the  time 
it  occurred  ;  for  the  secretary  of  ihe  governor 
general  expr*  ssly  states,  that  the  informal  ion  and 
political  observations,  heretofore  received  from 
Mr.  Hewry,  were  transmitted  by  his  excellency 
to  the  secretary  of  state,  who  had  expressed  his 
particular  approbation  of  them  ;"*  the  second 
mission  was  approved  when  it  was  known  ;  and 
it  remains  for  the  British  government  to  explain, 
upon  any  established  principles  of  morality  and 
justice,  the  essential  difference  between  ordering 
the  offensive  acts  to  be  done ;  and  reaping  the 
fruit  of  those  acts,  without  either  expressly,  or 
tacitly,  condemning  them. 

Again  :  These  hostile  attempts  upon  the  peace 
and  union  of  the  United  States,  preceding  the 
declaration  of  war,  have  been  followed  by  simi 
lar  machinations,  subsequent  to  that  event.  The 
governor  general  of  the  Canadas  has  endeavored, 
occasionally,  in  his  proclamations  and  general  or 
ders,  to  dissuade  the  militia  of  the  United  States, 
from  the  performance  of  the  duty  which  they 
owed  to  their  injured  country  ;  and  the  efforts, 
at  Quebec  aad  Halifax,  to  kindle  the  flame  of  civ 
il  war,  have  been  as  incessant,  as  they  have  been 
insidious  and  abortive.  Sfay,  the  governor  of  the 
island  of  Barbadoes,  totally  forgetful  of  the 
boasted  article  of  the  British  magna  charta,  in 
favor  of  foreign  merchants,  found  within  the 
British  dominions,  upon  the  breaking  out  of  hos 
tilities,  resolved  that  every  America*  merchant, 
within  his  jurisdiction  at  the  declaration  of  war, 
should  at  ence,  be  treated  as  a  prisoner  of  war  ; 
because  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  was 

*See  Mr.  Rylsnd's  letter  of  tke  26th  of  Jan, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  85 

enrolled  in  the  militia;  because  tbe  militia  of 
the  United  States  were  required  to  serve  their 
country  beyond  the  limits  of  the  state,  to  which 
they  particularly  belonged  5  and  because  the  mi 
litia  of  "  ail  the  states,  which  had  acceded  to  this 
measure,  \vere,  in  the  view  of  sir  George  Beck- 
with,  acting  as  a  French  conscription/'* 

Again  :  "Nor  was  this  course  of  conduct  eon- 
fined  to  th«  colonial  authorities.  On  the  26th  of 
October,  1812,  the  British  government  issued  an 
order  in  council,  authorizing  the  governors  of  the 
British  West  Ifldia  islands,  to  grant  licenses  t© 
American  vessels,  far  the  importation  and  expor 
tation  of  certain  articles,  enumerated  in  the  or 
der  ;  but  in  the  instructions  which  aecomp;  *  led 
the  order,  it  was  expressly  provided,  that «  what 
ever  importations  were  proposed  to  be  made, 
from  the  United  States  of  America,  should  be  by 
licenses,  confined  to  the  ports  of  the  eastern  states 
exclusively,  unless  there  was  reason  to  suppose, 
that  the  object  of  the  order  would  not  be  fulfilled, 
if  licenses  were  not  granted,for  importations  from 
the  other  ports  of  the  United  States."! 

The  president  of  the  United  States  has  not  hes 
itated  to  place  before  the  nation,  with  expressions 
of  a  just  indignation,  "  the  policy  of  Great  Brit 
ain  thus  proclaimed  to  the  world  ;  introducing  in 
to  her  modes  of  warfare,  a  system  equally  distin 
guished  by  the  deformity  of  "its  features,*  and  the 
depravity  of  its  character  ;  and  having  for  its 
object,  to  dissolve  the  ties  of  allegiance,  and  flic 
sentiments  of  loyalty,  in  the  adversary  nation  ,•  and 

*See  the  remarkable  state  paper  issued  by  gov.  Bcck- 
with,  atBarbadoes,  oa  the  13th  of  Nov.  1812. 

fSee  the  proclamation  of  the  gov.  of  Bermuda,  of  Jaji 
14,  1814  ;  and  the  instructions  from  the  British  secretary, 
for  foreign  affairs,  dated  November  9,  1812. 
H 


86  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

to  seduce  and  separate  its  component  parts,  the 
one  from  the  other.":}: 

2.  Great  Britain  has  violated  the  laws  of  hu 
manity  and  honor,  by  seeking  alliances,  in  the 
prosecution  of  the  war,  with  savages,  pirates  and 
slaves. 

The  British  agency,  in  exciting  the  Indians,  at 
all  times,  to  commit  hostilities  upon  the  frontier 
of  the  United  States,  is  too  notorious,  to  admit  of 
a  direct  and  general  denial.  It  has  sometimes, 
however,  been  said,  that  such  conduct  was  unau 
thorized  by  the  British  government ;  and  the 
prince  regent,  seizing  the  single  instance  of  an  in 
timation,  alleged  to  be  given,  on  the  part  of  sir 
Jaraes  Craig,  governor  of  the  Canadas,  that  an 
attack  was  meditated  by  the  Indians,  has  affirmed, 
that  "  the  charge  of  exciting  the  Indians  to  of 
fensive  measures  against  the  United  States,  was 
void  of  foundation  ;  that  before  the  war  began,  a 
policy  the  most  opposite  had  been  uniformly  pur- 
sued  ;  and  that  proof  of  this  was  tendered  by 
Mr.  Foster  to  the  American  government.!  But 
is  it  not  known  in  Europe,  as  well  as  in  America, 
that  the  British  Northwest  Company  maintain  a 
constant  intercourse  of  trade  and  council  with 
the  Indians  ;  that  their  interests  are  often  in  di 
rect  collision  with  the  interests  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  by  means  of  the 
inimical  dispositions,  and  the  active  agencies  of 
the  company,  (seen,  understood,  and  tacitly  sane- 
lotted  by  the  local  aufliori ties  of  Canada)  all  the 

tSee  the  message  from  the  president  to  congress,  dated 
the  24th  of  February,  1813. 

iSee  tl*e  prince  regent's  declaration  of  the  10th  of 
January,  1813. 

See,  alo,Mr.  Foster's  letters  to  Mr.  Monroe,  dated 
the  28th  Dec.  1811,  and  the  7th  and  8th  June,  1812  ;  and 
Mr.  Monroe's  answer,  dated  the  9th  of  January,  1812, 
aod  the  10th  of  June,  1812  ;  and  the  documents  whick 
Accompanied  the  correspondence. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  87 

evils  of  an  Indian  tvar  may  be  shed  upon  the  U- 
nited  States,  without  the  authority    of    a   formal 
order,  emanating  immediately  from   the  British 
government  ?  Hence,  the  American  government, 
in  an  answer  to  the  evasive   protestations   of  the 
British  minister,  residing  at  Washington,  frankly 
communicated  the  evidence   of   British   agency, 
\vhich  had  heen  received  at  different  periods  since 
the  year  1807  ;    and  observed,   "  that  whatever 
may  have  been  the  disposition  of  the  British  gov 
ernment,  the  conduct  of   its   subordinate   agents 
had  tended  to  excite  the  hostility  of   the   Indian 
tribes  towards  the  United  States  ;  and  that  in  es 
timating  the  comparative  evidence  on  thesuhject, 
it  was  impossible  riot  to  reeolleet  the   communi 
cation  lately  made,  respecting  the  conduct  of  Sir 
James  Craig,  in  another  important  transaction 
(the  employment  of  Mr.  Henry,  as  an  accredit 
ed  agent,  to  alienate  and  detack  the  citizens  of  a 
particular  section  of  the  Union,  from  their  gov- 
erriment)whicb,  it  appeared,  was  approved  by  lord 
Liverpool.'^ 

The  proof,  however,  that  the  British  agents 
and  military  officers  were  guilty  of  the  charge 
thus  exhibited,  became  cenelnsivc,  when,  subse 
quent  to  the  communication  which  was  made  to 
the  British  minister,  the  defeat  and  flight  of  gen 
eral  Proctor's  army,  on  the  of  placed  in 
the  possession  of  the  American  commander,  the 
correspondence  and  papers  of  the  British  officers. 
Selected  from  the  docuaients  which  were  obtained 
upon  that  occasion,  the  contents  of  a  few  letters 
will  serve  to  characterize  the  whole  ef  the  mass. 
In  these  letters,  written  by  Mr.  M'Xee,  the  Brit 
ish  agent,  to  colonel  England,  the  commander  of 
the  British  troops,  superscribed,  "  on  his  majes 
ty's  service,'*  and  dated  during  the  months  of  Ju- 

*See  Mr.  Monroe's  letter  to  Mr.  Foster,  dated  the  10th 
of  June,  1812. 


88  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

Jy  and  August,  1794,  the  period  of  general 
"Wayne's  successful  expedition  against  (be  Indians, 
it  appears  that  the  scalps  taken  by  the  Indians 
were  sent  to  the  British  establishment  at  the  rap 
ids  of  the  Miami  $*  that  the  hostile  operations 
of  the  Indians  were  concerted  with  the  British 
agents  and  officers  $f  that  when  certain  tribes  of 
Indians  "having  completed  the  belts  they  carried 
with  scalps  and  prisoners,  and  being  without  pro 
visions,  resolved  on  going  home,  it  was  lamented 
that  his  majesty's  posts  would  derive  DO  security 
from  the  late  great  influx  of  Indians  into  that 
part  of  the  country,  should  they  persist  in  their 
resolution  of  returning  so  soon  ;'  ^  that  "  the 
British  agents  v/ere  immediately  lo  hold  a  coun 
cil  at  the  Glaze,  in  order  to  try  if  they  could 
prevail  with  the  Lake  Indians  to  remain  ;  but 
that  without  provisions  and  ammunition  being 
sent  to  that  place,  it  wag  conceived  to  be  extreme 
ly  difficult  to  keep  them  together  ;"§  and  that 
«•  colonel  England  was  making  great  exertions 
to  supply  tke  Indians  with  provisions."))  But 
the  language  of  the  correspondence  becomes  at 
length  so  plain  and  direct,  that  it  seems  impos 
sible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  ef  a  governmental 
agency j  on  the  part  of  Groat  Britain,  in  advising, 
aiding,  and  conducting  tSie  Indian  war,  while  ?he 
professed  friendship  and  peace  towards  the  U. 
States.  "  Scouts  are  sent,  (says  Mr.  M9Kee 
to  coloMel  England)  to  view  the  situation  of  the 
American  army  ;  ar.d  we  now  muster  one  thousand 
Indians.  Ail* the  Lake  Indians,  from  Sugana 

*  Seethe  letter  from  Mr.  M'Kee   to  colonel  Eng 
land,  dated  the  2d  of  Ju\y,  1794. 

f  See  the  letter  from  the  same  to  the  same,  dated 

of  July,  1794. 

See  the  same  letter,          §  See  the  same  letter. 
Sse  the  same  letter. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  89 

downwards,  should  net  lose  one  moment  in  join 
ing  their  brethren,  as  every  accession  of  strength 
is  an  addition  to  their  spirits.'5^  And  again  : 
"  I  have  been  employed  several  days  in  endeavor 
ing  to  fix  the  Indians,  who  have  been  driven  from 
their  villages  and  cornfields,  between  the  fort  and 
the  bay.  Swan  Creek  is  generally  agreed  upon, 
and  will  be  a  very  convenient  place  for  the  deliv 
ery  of  provisions,  &e.J>f  \Vhether,  under  the 
various  proofs  of  the  British  agency,  in  exciting 
Indian  hostilities  against  the  United  Stales,  in  a 
time  of  peace,  presented  in  the  course  of  tho 
present  narrative,  the  prince  regent's  declaration, 
that,  «•  before  the  war  began,  a  policy  the  most 
opposite  had  bee»  uniformly  pursued,"  by  the 
British  government,^:  is  to  be  ascribed  to  a  want 
of  information,  or  a  w7ant  of  candor,  the  Ameri 
can  government  is  not  disposed,  more  particular 
ly  to  investigate. 

But,  independent  of  these  causes  of  just  ccin- 
plaint,  arising  in  a  time  of  peace,  it  will  be  found, 
t&at  \vhen  the  war  was  declared,  the  alliance  of 
the  British  government  with  the  Indian?,  was 
avowed  upon  principles  the  most  novel,  produc 
ing  consequences  the  most  dreadful.  The  sav 
ages  were  brought  into  the  war,  upon  the  ordina 
ry  footing  of  allies,  without  regard  to  the  inhuman 
character  of  their  warfare;  which  neither  spares. 
age  »or  sex ;  and  which  is  more  desperate  to 
wards  the  captive,  at  the  stake,  than  towards  the 
combatant  in  the  field.  It  seemed  to  be  a  stipu 
lation  of  the  compact,  between  the  allies,  that 

*  See  the  letter  from  Mr.  M'Kee  to  colonel  Eng 
land,  dated  the  13th  of  August,  1794. 

fSee  the  letter  from  the  same  to  the  same,  dated  the 
30th  of  August,  1794. 

^Seethe  prince  regent's  declaration  of  the  10th  of 
January,  1813, 


SO  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

the  British  might  imitate,  but  should  not  control 
the  ferocity  of  the  savages.  While  the  British 
troops  behold,  without  compunction,  the  toma 
hawk  and  the  scalping  knife?  hrandished  against 
prisoners,  old  men  and  children,  and  even  against 
pregnant  women,  and  while  they  exultiagly  SKJ- 
ueptthe  bloody  scalps  of  the  slaughtered  Ameri- 
eans,#the  Indian  exploits  in  battle,  are  recounted 
and  applauded  by  the  British  general  orders* 
Hank  and  station  are  assigned  to  them,  in  the 
military  movements  of  the  British  army  ;  acd 
the  unhallowed  league  was  ratified,  with  appro 
priate  emblems,  by  intertwining  an  American 
scalp,  with  the  decorations  of  the  mace,  which 
the  commander  of  the  northern  army  of  the  li 
nked  States  found  in  the  legislative  chamber  of 
York,  the  capital  of  Upper  Canada. 

In  the  single  scene,  that  succeeded  the  battle  of 
Frenchtown,  near  the  river  Raisin,  where  the  A- 
merican  troops  were  defeated  by  the  allies,  under 
the  command  of  general  Proctor,  there  will  be 
found  concentrated,  upon  indisputable  proof,  an 
illustration  of  the  horrors  of  the  warfare,  which 
Great  Britain  has  pursued,  and  still  pursues,  in 
co-operation  with  the  savages  cf  the  south,  as 
well  as  with  the  savages  of  the  north.  The  A- 
inerican  army  capitulated  on  the  22d  January, 
1813:  yet,  after  the  faith  of  the  British  com 
mander  had  been  pledged,  in  the  terms  of  $ie  ca 
pitulation  ;  and  while  the  British  officers  and  so3- 
tliers  silently  and  exultingly  contemplated  the 
scene,  some  of  the  American  prisoners  of  war 
were  tomahawked,  some  were  shot,  and  some 
were  burnt.  Many  of  the  unarmed  inhabit  Acts 
«f  the  Michigan  territory  were  massacred ;  their 
property  was  plundered,  and  their  houses  were 

*See  the  letter  from  the  American  general  Harrison  1©. 
the  British  general  Proctor. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  9i 

destroyed. ^  The  d^ad  bodies  of  (he  mangled  A- 
merieans  were  exposed,  unburied,  to  be  devoured 
by  dogs  and  swine  ;  "  because,  as  the  British  of 
ficers  declared,  the  Indians  would  not  permit  the 
interment  ;"f  and  some  of  the  Americans,  who 
survived  the  carnage,  had  been  extricated  from 
danger,  only  by  being  purchased  at  a  pi  ice  as  a 
part  of  the  booty  belonging  to  the  Indians.  But, 
to  complete  this  dreadful  view  of  human  deprav 
ity  and  human  wretchedness,  it  is  only  necessary 
to"  add,  that  an  American  physseian,  who  was  dis 
patched  with  a  flag  of  truce,  to  ascertain  the  sit 
uation  of  his  wounded  brethrei),  awl  two  persons, 
his  companions,  were  intercepted  by  the  Indians, 
in  their  humane  mission  \  the  physician,  after  be 
ing  wounded,  and  one  of  his  companions,  were 
made  prisoners ;  and  the  third  person  of  the  par 
ty  was  killed 4 

But  the  savage,  who  had  never  known  the  re 
straints  of  civilized  life,  and  the  pirate,  who  had 
broken  the  bonds  of  society,  were  alike  the  ob 
jects  of  British  conciliation  and  alliance,  for  the 
purposes  of  an  ur* par alleled  warfare.  A  horde 
of  pirates  and  outlaws  had  formed  a  confederacy 
and  establishment  on  the  island  of  Barrataria,- 
near  the  mouth  of  the  river  Missisippi.  Will  .Eu 
rope  believe,  that  the  commaoder  of  the  British 
forces,  addressed  the  leader  of  the  confederacy, 
from  the  neutral  territory  of  Fensaeola,  "calling 
upon  him,  with  his  brave  followers,  to  enter  into 

*See  the  report  of  the  committee  of  house  of  rep  re  sen-' 
tatives,  on  the  31st  of  July,   1812  ;    and  the    depositions 
and  documents  accompanying  it. 

fSee  the  official  report  of  lyir.  Baker,  the  agent  for  the 
prisoners,  to  brigadier  general  Winchester,  dated  the' 
26th  February,  1813. 

tin  addition  to  this  description  of  savage  warfare  un 
der  British  auspices,  see  the  facts  contained  in  the  cor 
respondence  between  gen,  Harrison  and  gen,  Drummond, 


92  AMERICAN  EXPOSE, 

the  service  of  Great  Britain,  in  which  he  should 
have  the  rank  of  captain  ;  promising  that  lands 
should  he  given  to  them  all,  ia  proportion  to  their 
respective  ranks,  oa  a  peace  faking  place  ;  as 
suring  them,  that  their  property  should  he  guar 
anteed,  and  their  persons  protected ;  and  asking, 
in  return,  that  they  would  eease  all  hostilities  a- 
gainst  Spain,  or  the  allies  of  Great  Britain,  and 
place  their  ships  and  vessels  under  the  British 
commanding  oiiiceron  that  station,  until  the  com- 
inauder  in  chief's  pleasure  should  he  known,  with 
a  guarantee  of  their  fair  value  at  all  events."* 
There  wanted  only  to  exemplify  the  debasemcBt 
of  such  an  act,  the  occurrence,  that  the  pirate 
should  spurn  the  proffered  alliance  ;  and,  accor 
dingly,  Lafitte's  answer  was  indignantly  given,  by 
a  delivery  of  the  letter,  containing  the  British 
proposition,  to  the  American  governor  of  Louisi 
ana. 

There  were  other  sources,  however,  of  support, 
which  Great  Britain  was  prompted  by  her  ven 
geance  to  employ,  in  opposition  to  the  plainest 
dictates  of  her  own  colonial  policy.  The  events 
which  have  extirpated  or  dispersed  the  while  pop 
ulation  of  St.  Domingo,  are  in  the  recollection  of 
all  men.  Although  British  humanity  might  Rot 
shrink,  from  the  infliction  of  similar  calamities 
upon  the  southern  states  of  America,  the  danger 
of  that  course,  either  as  an  incitement  to  revolt, 
of  the  slaves  of  the  British  islands,  or  as  a  cause 
of  retaliation,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
ought  to  have  admonished  her  against  its  adop 
tion.  Yet,  in  a  formal  proclamation  issued  by 
the  commander  in  chief  of  his  Britannic  majesty's* 
squadrons,  upon  the  American  station,  the  slaves 

*See  the  letter  addressed  by  Edward  Nichols,  lieut. 
colonel,  commanding  his  Britannic  majesty's  force  in  the 
the  Floridas,  to  Monsieur  Lafite,  or  the  commandant  at 
Barrataria,  dated  the  31st  ef  August,  1814. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  §3 

of  the  American  planters  were  invited  to  join  the 
British  standard,  in  a  covert  phraseology*  that 
afforded  but  a  slight  veil  for  the  real  design.— 
Thus,  admiral  Coehrane,  reciting,  "  that  it  had 
been  represented  to  him,  that  many  persons  now 
resident  in  the  United  States,  had  expressed  a  de 
sire  to  withdraw  therefrom,  with  a  view  to  enter 
into  his  majesty's  serviet,  or  of  being  received  as 
free  settlers  into  some  of  his  majesty's  colonies," 
proclaimed,  that  «*  all  those  who  might  be  dispos 
ed  to  emigrate  from  the  United  States,  would  be? 
with  their  families,  received  on  board  of  his  »iaj» 
esty's  ships  or  vessels  of  war,  or  at  the  military 
posts  that  might  be  established  upon  or  near  the 
coast  of  the  United  States,  when  they  would  have 
their  choice  of  either  entering  into  his  majesty's 
sea  or  land  forces,  or  of  being  sent  as  free  settlers 
to  the  British  possessions  in  North  America,  OP 
the  West  Indies*  where  they  would  meet  all  due 
encouragement. "^  But  even  the  negroes  seem, 
in  contempt  or  disgust,  to  have  resisted  the  solic 
itation  j  no  rebellion  or  massacre  ensued  ;  and 
the  allegation,  often  repeated,  that  in  relation  to 
those  who  were  seduced,  or  forced,  from  the  ser 
vice  of  their  masters,  instances  have  oeceurred  of 
some  being  afterwards  transported  to  the  British 
West  India  islands,  and  there  sold  into  slavery, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  captors,  remains  without 
oon trail  ration.  So  complicated  an  act  of  injustice, 
would  demand  the  reprobation  of  mankind.  And 
Jet  the  British  government,  which  profess  a  just 
abhorrence  of  the  African  slave  trade  ;  which  en 
deavors  to  impose,  in  that  respect,  restraints  up 
on  the  policy  of  France,  Spain  and  Portugal  :  an- 
awer,  if  it  can,  the  solemn  charge  against  their 
faith  and  their  humanity. 

*See  admiral  Gochrane's  proclamation,  dated  at  Ber 
muda,  the  2ci*of  April,  1S14. 


94  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

3.  Great  Britain  has  violated  the  laws  of  civil 
ized  warfare,  by  plundering  private  property  ;  by 
outraging  female  honor  ,  by  burning  unprotected 
cities,  towns,  villages  and  houses  ;  and  by  laying 
waste  whole  districts  of  an  unresisting  country. 

The  menace  aud  the  practice  of  the  British 
naval,  and  military  force,  "  to  destroy  and  lay 
waste  such  towns  and  districts  upon  the  American 
coast,  as  might  be  found  assailable,"  have  been 
executed  upon  the  pretext  of  retaliation,  for  the 
wanton  destruction  committed  by  the  American 
army  in  Upper  Canada  ;f  but  the  fallacy  of  the 
pretext  has  already  been  exposed.  It  will  be  re 
collected,  however  that  the  act  of  burning  New 
ark  was  instantaneously  disavowed  by  the  Amer 
ican  government ;  that  it  occured  in  December, 
1813 — and  that  sir  George  Prevost  himsalf  ac 
knowledged,  on  the  10th  of  February,  1814,  that 
the  measure  of  retaliation  for  all  previously  im 
puted  misconduct  of  the  American  troops,  was 
then  full  and  complete.^  Between  the  month  of 
February,  1814,  w  hen  that  acknowledgement  was 
made,  and  the  month  of  August,  181k.  when  the 
British  admiral's  denunciation  was  issued,  what 
are  the  outrages  upon  the  part  of  the  American 
troops  in  Canada,  to  justy  a  call  for  retaliation  ? 
No  :  it  was  the  system,  not  the  incident,  of  the 
war — and  intelligence  of  the  system  had  been  re 
ceived  at  Washington,  from  the  American  agents 
in  Europe,  with  refeienceto  the  operation,  of  ad 
miral  Warren  upon  the  shores  of  the  Chesapeake, 
long  before  admiral  Cochrane  had  succeeded  to 
the  command  of  the  British  Beet  on  the  American 
station. 

fSee  admiral  CocHrane's  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe,  dated 
August  13,  1814. 

^See  sir  George  Prevost's  letter  to  general  Wilkinson, 
dated  the  10th  of  February,  1814. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  95 

As  an  appropriate  introduction  to  the  kind  of 
war,  which  Great  Britain  intended  to  wage 
against  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  trans 
actions  occurred  in  England,  under  the  avowed 
direction  of  the  government  itself,  that  could  not 
fail  to  wound  the  moral  sense  of  every  candid  and 
generous  spectator.  All  the  officers  and  mariners 
of  American  merchant  ships,  who,  having  lost 
their  vessels  in  other  places,  had  gone  to  England 
on  the  way  to  America  ;  or  who  had  been  em 
ployed  in  British  merchant  ships,  but  were  desir 
ous  of  returning  home,  or  who  had  been  detained 
in  consequence  of  the  condemnation  of  their  ves 
sels  under  the  British  orders  in  council  ;  or  who 
had  arrived  in  England,  through  any  of  the  other 
casualities  of  the  seafaring  life  ;  were  condemned 
to  be  treated  as  prisoners  of  war ;  nay,  some  of 
them  were  actually  impressed,  while  soliciting 
their  passports  ;  although  not  one  of  their  num 
ber  had  been,  in  any  way,  engaged  in  hostilities 
against  Great  Britain  ;  although  the  American 
government  had  afforded  every  facility  to  the  de 
parture  of  the  same  class,  as  well  as  of  every  oth 
er  class,  of  British  subjects,  from  the  United 
States,  for  a  reasonable  period  after  the  declara 
tion  of  war.*  But  this  act  of  injustice,  for  which 
even  the  pretext  of  retaliation  has  not  been  ad 
vanced,  was  accompanied  by  another  still  greater 
cruelty  and  oppression.  The  American  seamen, 
who  had  been  enlisted  or  impressed,  into  the  na 
val  service  of  Great  Britain,  were  long  retained, 
and  many  ef  them  are  yet  retained,  on  board  of 
British  ships  of  war,  where  they  are  compelled  to 
combat  against  their  country  and  against  their 

*See   Mr.  Beasley's  correspondence  with  the  British 
government,  in  October,  November,  and  Dec.  1812. 
See,  also,  the  act  of  congress,  passed  the  6th  of  July 


96  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

friends  :  and  ryen  when  the  British  government 
tardily  and  reluctantly  recognized  the  citizenship 
of  impressed  Americans,  to  a  number  exceeding 
1000  at  a  single  naval  station,  and  dismissed  them 
from  its  set-vice  on  the  \vater  ,  it  was  only  to  im 
mure  them  as  prisoners  of  war  on  the  shore.—* 
These  unfortunate  persons,  who  had  passed  into 
the  power  of  the  British  government,  by  a  viola 
tion  of  their  own  rights  and  inclinations,  as  well 
as  of  the  rights  of  their  country,  and  who  coul(Um- 
ly  he  regarded  as  the  spoils  of  unlawful  violence, 
were,  nevertheless,  treated  as  the  fruits  of  lawful 
war.  Such  was  the  indemnification,  which  Great 
Britain  offered  for  the  wrongs,  that  she  had  in 
dicted  ;  and  such  the  reward,  which  she  bestow 
ed,  for  the  services  that  she  had  received. f 

Nor  has  the  spirit  of  British  warfare  been  con 
fined  to  violations  of  the  usages  of  civilized  na 
tions,  in  relation  to  the  United  States.  The  sys 
tem  of  blockade,  by  orders  in  council,  has  been 
revived  ;  and  the  American  coast,  from  Maine  to 
Louisiana,  has  been  declared  by  the  proclamation 
cTa  British  admiral,  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade, 
vhieh  every  day's  observation  proves  to  be,  prac 
tically,  ineffectual,  and  which,  indeed,  the  \vhole 
of  the  British  navy  would  be  unable  to  enforce 
and  maintain.:}:  Neither  the  orders  in  council, 
acknowledged  to  be  generally  unlawful,  and  de 
clared  to  b$  merely  retaliatory  upon  Franco  ;  nor 
the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  which  plaeed  the 
British  islands  in  a  state  of  blockade,  without  the 
foree  of  a  single  squadron  to  maintain  it  $  were, 
in  principle,  more  injurious  to  the  rights  of  nea- 

f See  tha  letter  from  Mr.  Beasley,  to  Mr.  M'Leay,  da 
ted  the  12th  of  March,  1816. 

^See  the  successive  blockades  announced  by  the  Brit 
ish  government,  and  the  successive  naval  commanders 
on  the  Americaa  station. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  9r 

tral  commerce,  than  the  existing  blockade  of  the 
United  States.  The  revival,  therefore/  of  the 
system,  without  the  retaliatory  -pretext,  most  'de 
monstrate  to  the  world,  a  detci 'initiation  on  tLe 
part  of  Great  Britain,  to  acquire  a  commercial 
monopoly,  by  every  demonstration  of  her  naval 
power.  The  trade  of  the  United  States  with 
Mussia,  and  with  other  northern  powers,  by 
whose  governments  no  edicts,  violating  neutral 
rights,  had  been  issued,  was  cut  oft*  by  the  opera 
tion  of  the  British  orders  in  council  of  the  year 
1807,  as  effectually  as  their  trade  with  Franca 
and  her  allies,  although  the  retaliatory  principle 
was  totally  inapplicable  to  the  case.  And  the 
blockade  of  the  year  1814,  is  an  attempt  to  de 
stroy  the  trade  of  those  nations,  and  indeed,  of 
all  the  other  nations  of  Europe,  with  the  United 
States;  while  Great  Britain,  herself,  with  the 
same  policy  and  ardor,  that  marked  her  illicit 
trade  with  France,  when  France  was  her  enemy, 
encourages  a  clandestine  traffic  between  her  sub 
jects  and  the  American  citizens,  wherever  her 
possessions  come  in  contact  with  the  territory  of 
the  United  States. 

But  approaching  nearer  to  the  scenes  of  plun 
der  and  violence,  of  cruelty  and  conflagration, 
which  the  British  warfare  exhibits  on  the  coasts 
of  the  United  States,  it  must  be  again  asked, 
what  acts  of  the  American  government,  of  its* 
ships  of  war,  or  of  its  armies,  had  occurred,  or 
were  even  alleged,  as  a  pretext  for  the  perpetra 
tion  of  this  series  of  outrages  ?  It  will  not  be  as 
serted,  that  they  were  sanctioned  by  the  usages 
of  modern  war  ;  because  the  sense  of  all  Europe 
would  revolt  at  the  assertion.  It  will  not  be  said, 
that  they  were  the  unauthorized  excesses  of  the 
British  troops  ;  because  scarcely  an  act  of  plun 
der  and  violence,  of  cruelty  and  conflagration, 
has  been  committed,  except  in  the  immediate 
presence,  under  the  positive  orders,  and  with  ^ 

I 


9*  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

personal  agency,  of  British  officers.  It  mast  net 
be  again  insinuated,  that  they  were  provoked  by 
the  American  example ;  because  it  has  been  de 
monstrated,  that  all  such  insinuations  are  with 
out  color,  and  without  proof.  And,  after  all,  the 
dreadful  and  disgraceful  progress  of  ihe  British 
arms,  will  be  traced,  as  the  effect  of  that  animos 
ity,  arising  out  of  recollections  connected  with 
the  American  revolution,  which  has  already  been 
noticed  ;  or,  as  the  effect  of  that  Jealousy,  which 
the  commercial  enterprise,  and  native  resources, 
of  the  United  States,  are  calculated  to  excite,  in 
the  councils  of  a  nation,  aiming  at  universal  do 
minion  upon  the  ocean. 

In  the  month  of  April,  1813,  the  inhabitants  of 
Poplar  island,  in  the  bay  of  Chesapeake,  were 
pillaged ;  and  the  cattle,  and  other  live  stock  of 
ihe  farmers,  beyond  what  the  enemy  ceuld  re 
move,  were  wantonly  killed. # 

In  the  same  month  of  April,  the  wharf,  the 
store,  and  the  fishery,  at  Frenehtown  landing, 
were  destroyed,  and  the  private  stores,  and  store 
houses.in  the  village  of  Frenchtown,  were  burnt.j 

In  the  same  month  of  April,  the  enemy  landed 
repeatedly  on  Sharp's  island,  and  made  a  general 
sweep  of  the  stock,  affecting,  however,  to  pay  for 
a  part  of  it.^ 

On  the  3d  day  of  May,  1813,  the  town  of  Ha 
vre  de  Grace  was  pillaged  and  burnt,  by  a  force 
finder  the  command  of  admiral  Cockburn.  The 
British  officers,  being  admonished,  "  that  with 
civilized  nations  at  war.  private  property  had  al 
ways  been  respected,"  hastily  replied,  «  that 
as  the  Americans  wanted  war,  they  should  now 
feel  its  effects ;  and  that  the  town  should  be  laid 

*See  the  deposition  of  William  Sears. 
JSee  the  deposition  of  Frisby  Anderson  and  Cordelia 
Pennington. 

Jacob  Gibson's  deposit  Jom 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  99 

in  ashes."  They  broke  the  windows  of  the  church  ; 
they  purloined  the  houses  of  the  furniture  ;  they  strip 
ped  women  and  children  of  their  clothes  ;  ana  when 
an  unfortunate  female  complained,  that  she  could  not 
leave  her  house  with  her  little  children,  she  was  un 
feelingly  told,  "  that  her  house  should  be  burnt  with 
herself  and  children  in  it.'5* 

On  the  6th  of  May,  1813,  Fredericktown  and 
Georgetown,  situated  on  Sassafras  river,  in  the  state  of 
Maryland,  were  pillaged  and  burnt,  and  the  adjacent 
country  was  laid  waste,  by  a  force  under  the  command 
of  admiral  Cockburn  ;  and  the  officers  were  the  most 
active  on  the  occasion. f 

On  the  22d  of  June,  1813,  the  British  forces  made  an 
a  ttack  on  Craney  Island,  with  a  view  to  take  possession 
of  jyorfoik,  which  the  commanding  officers  had  prom 
ised  in  case  of  success,  to  give  up  to  the  plunder  of 
the  t  roops4  The  British  were  repulsed ;  but  enraged 
by  defeat  and  disappointment,  their  course  was  directed 
to  Hampton,  which  they  entered  on  the  of  June. 
The  scene,  that  ensued,  exceeds  all  power  of  descrip 
tion  ;  and  a  detail  of  facts  would  be  offensive  to  the  feel 
ings  of  decorum,  as  well  as  of  humanity.  «  A  defence 
less  and  unresisting  town  was  given  up  to  indiscrimi 
nate  pillage  ;  though  civilized  war  tolerates  this  only, 
as  to  fortified  places  carried  by  assault,  and  after  sum 
mons.  Individuals,  male  and  female,  were  stripped 
naked  ;  a  sick  man,  was  stabbed  twice  in  the  hospital ; 
another  eick  man  was  shot  in  his  bed,  in  the  arms  of 
his  wife,  who  was  also  wounded,  long  after  the  retreat 
of  the  American  troops  ;  and  females,  the  married  and 
the  single,  suffered  the  extremity  of  personal  abuse 
from  the  troops  of  the  enemy,  and  from  the  infatuated 

*See  the  deposition  of  William  T.  Kilpatrick,  Jamef 
Wood,  Rosanua  Moore  and  R.  Mansfield. 

fSee  the  depositions  of  John  Stavely,  William  Spencer, 
Joshua  Ward,  James  Scanlan,  Richard  Barnaby,  F.  B, 
Chandlear,  Jonathan  Greenwood,  John  Allen,  T.Robert 
son,  M.  N.  Gannon,  and  J.  T.  Veasey. 

rfSee  gen.  Taylor's  letter  to  the  secretary  at  war,  dated 
the  2u  of  July,  1813. 


100  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

negroes,  at  their  instigation."*  The  fact  that  these  at- 
troeities  were  committed,  the  commander  of  the  Brit 
ish  fleet,,  admiral  Warren,  and  the  commander  of  the 
British  troops,  sir  Sidney  Beckwith,  admitted  without 
hesitation,!  but  they  resorted,  as  on  other  occasions, 
to  the  unavailing  pretext  of  a  justifiable  retaliation.  It 
was  said,  by  the  British  general,  "  that  the  excesses  at 
Hampton  wt  re,  occasioned  by  an  occurrence,  at  there- 
cent  attempt  upon  Craney  Island,  when  the  British 
troops  in  a  barge,  sunk  by  the  American  guns,  clung  to 
the  wreck  of  the  boat  ;  but  several  Americans  waded 
off  from  the  Isjand,  fired  upon  and  shot  these  men.'* 
The  truth  of  the  assertion  was  denied  ;  the  act,  if  it 
had  been  perpetrated  by  the  American  troops,  was 
promptly  disavowed  by  their  commander  ;  and  a  board 
of  officers  appointed  to  investigate  the  facts,  after  stat 
ing  the  evidence,  reported  "  an  unbiased  opinion,  that 
the  charge  against  the  American  troops  was  unsup 
ported  ;  and  that  the  character  of  the  American  sol 
diery  for  humanity  and  magnanimity,  had  not  been  com 
mitted,  but.  on  th*:;  contrary  confirmed.'^  The  result 
of  the  enquiry  was  communicated  to  the  British  gen* 
*>rai  ;  reparation  was  demanded  ;  but  it  was  soon  per 
ceived  ;  that  whatever  might  personally  be  the  liberal 
dispositions  of  that  officer,  no  adequate  reparation  could 


the  letters  from  general  Taylor  to  admiral  War- 
reii,  dated  the  29th  of  June,  1813,  to  gen.  sir  Sidney  Beck- 
Tvith,  dated  the  4th  and  5th  of  July,  1813  ;  to  the  secre 
tary  of  >*ar.  dated  the  2d  of  July,  1813  ;  and  to  captain 
My  *<'s.  of  the  last  date. 

See,  a]  so,  the  letter  from  major  Crutchfield  to  govern 
or  Harbour,  dated  the  20th  of  June,  1813  ;  the  letters  from 
C3pi.  Cooper  to  lieutenant  governor  Mallory,  dated  in 
."IL;':V,  1813  ;  ths  report  of  Messrs.  Griffin  and  Lively,  to 
xr,  ij.>r  Crutchfield,  dated  the  4th  of  July,  1813  ;  and  col. 
P^rker'o  publication  in  the  Enquirer. 

jSee  admiral  Warren's  letter  to  gen.  Taylor,  dated  the 
£9ia  of  June,  1813  ;  sir  Sidney  Beckwith's  letter  to  gen. 
Taylor,  dated  the  same  day  ;  and  the  report  of  captain 
Meyrs  to  gen.  Taylor,  of  July,  2d  1313. 

^See  tke  report  af  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  offi 
cers.  appointed  by  the  general  order,  of  the  1st  of  July,, 
1313. 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  101 

be  made,  as  the   conduct  tf,  his  t?oof>s  was  directed 
and  sanctioned  by  his  government.* 

During  the  period  of  these  transactions,  the  viK 
lage  of  Lewistown,  near  the  capes  of  the  Delaware,  in 
habited  chiefly  by  fishermen  and  pilots,  and  the  village 
of  Stonington,  seated  upon  the  shores  of  Connecticut, 
were  unsuccessfully  bombarded.  Armed  parties,  led 
by  officers  of  rank,  landed  daily  from  the  British  squad* 
ron,  making  predatory  incursions  into  the  open  coun 
try  :  rifling  and  burning  the  houses  and  cottages  of 
peaceable  and  retired  families,  pillaging  the  produce  of 
the  planter  and  the  farmer  ;  (their  tobacco,  their  grain, 
and  their  cattle  ;)  committing  violence  on  the  persons 
of  the  unprotected  inhabitants  ;  seizing  upon  slaves^ 
wherever  they  could  be  found,  as  booty  of  war  ;  and 
breaking  open  the  coffins  of  the  dead,  in  search  of  plun« 
der,  or  committing  robbery  on  the  altars  of  a  church, 
at  Chaptico,  St.  Inigoes,  and  Tappahannock,  with  a 
sacrilegious  race. 

But  the  consummation  of  British  outrage,  yet  re 
mains  to  be  stated,  from  the  awful  and  imperishable 
memorial  of  the  capital  atWashington.lt  has  been  already 
observed,  that  the  massacre  of  the  American  prisoners 
at  the  river  Raisin,  occurred  in  January,  1813  ;  that 
throughout  the  same  year,  the  desolating  warfare  of 
Great  Britain,  without  once  alledging  a  retaliatory  ex 
cuse,  made  the  shores  of  the  Chesapeake,  and  of  its 
tributary  rivers,  a  general  scene  of  ruin  and  distress  ; 
and  that  in  the  month  of  February,  1814,  sir  George 
Prevost  himself,  acknowledged-,  that  the  measures  of 
retaliation,  for  the  unauthorised  burning  of  Newark, 
in  December,  1813,  and  for  all  the  excesses  which  had 
been  imputed  to  the  American  army,  was,  at  that  time, 
fall  and  complete.  The  United  States,  indeed,  re 
garding  what  was  due  to  their  own  character,  rather 
than  what  was  due  to  the  conduct  of  their  enemy,  had 
forborne  to  authorise  a  just  retribution;  and  even  dis 
dained  to  place  the  destruction  of  fijFewark  to  retaliate* 

*Sse  gen.  Taylor's  letter  to  sir  Sidney  Beckwitk,  dated 
the  5th  of  July,  1S13  ;  and  the  aaswer  of  the  follow 
ing  day. 

12 


102  ASlRICAN  EXPOSE, 


fy  account,  for  £fie  ge-rreral  pillage  and  conflagration 
which  had  been  previously  perpetrated.  It  was  not 
without  astonishment,  therefore,  that  after  more  than  a 
year  of  patient  suffering*,  they  heard  it  announced  in 
August,  1814,  that  the  towns  and  districts  upon  tkeir 
coast,  were  to  be  destroyed  and  laid  waste,  in  revenge 
for  the  unspecified  and  unknown  acts  of  destruction, 
which  were  charged  against  the  American  troops  u> 
Upper  Canada.  The  letter  of  admiral  Cochran-e-  was. 
dated  on  the  1  8th,  but  it  was  not  received  until  the  31st 
of  August,  1814.  In  the  intermediate  time,  the  enemy 
debarked  a  body  of  about  five  or  six  thousand  troops 
at  Benedict,  on  the  Patvixent,  and  by  a  sudden  and 
fcteady  march  through  Biadensburg,  approached  the 
city  of  Washington.  This  city  has  been  selected  for 
the  seat  of  the  American  government  ;  but  the  num 
ber  of  its  houses  does  not  exceed  nine  hundred,  spread 
ever  an  extensive-  scite  ;  the  whole  number  of  its  in 
habitants  does  R©t  exceed  eight  thpusand  ;  and  the  ad 
jacent  country  is  thinly  populated.  Although  the  ne 
cessary  precautions  had  been  ordered,  to  assemble  the 
militia,  for  the  defence  of  the  city,  a  variety  of  causes 
combined  to  render  the  defence  unsuccessful  ;  and  the 
enemy  took  possession  of  Washington  on  the  evening 
of  the  24th  of  August,  1814.  The  commanders  of  the 
British  force  held  at  that  time  admiral  Cochrane's  des 
olating  order,  although  it  was  then  unknown  to  the  gov 
ernment  and  people  of  the  United  States;  but  con 
scious  of  the  danger  of  so  distant  a  separation  of  the 
British  fleet,  and  desirous,  by  every  plausible  artifice, 
to  deter  the  citizens  from  flying  to  arms  against  the  in 
vaders,  they  disavowed  all  design  of  injuring  private 
•sersoES  and  property,  and  gave  assurances  of  protec 
tion,  whenever  there  was  submission.  General  Ross 
Mid  admiral  Cockburn  then  proceeded  in  person  to  di 
rect  and  superintend  the  business  of  conflagration  :  in 
a  place,  \vhich  had  yielded  to  their  arms,  which  was 
unfortified,  and  by  which  no  hostility  was  threatened, 
They  set  fire  t©  the  capital,  within  whose  walls  were 
contained  the  halls  of  the  congress  of  the  United 
States,  the  hall  of  their  highest  tribunal  for  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice,  the  archives  of  the  legislature, 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE,  »03 

and  the  national  library.  They  set  fire  to  the  edifice, 
which  the  United  States  had  erected  for  the  residence 
of  their  chief  magistrate.  And  they  set  fire  to  the 
costly  and  extensive  building,  erected  for  the  accom 
modation  of  the  principal  officers  of  the  government, 
in  the  transaction  of  the  public  business.  These  mag 
nificent  monuments  of  the  progress  cf  the  arts,  which 
America  had  borrowed  from  her  parent  Europe,  with 
all  the  testimonials,  of  taste  and  literature  which  they 
contained,  were  on  the  memorable  night  of  the  14th  of 
August,  consigned  to  the  flames,  while  British  officers 
of  high  rank  and  command,  united  with  their  troops  in 
riotous  carousal,  by  the  light  of  the  burning  pile. 

But  the  character  of  the  incendiary  had  so  entirely 
superseded  the  character  of  the  soldier  on  this  unpar 
alleled  expedition,  that  a  great  portion  of  the  munitions 
of  war,  which  had  not  been  consumed,  when  the  navy 
yard  was  ordered  to  be  destroyed  upon  the  approach  of 
the  British  troops,  were  left  untouched,  and  an  exten 
sive  foundery  of  cannon,  adjoining  the  city  of  Washing 
ton,  was  left  uninjured  j  \vhen,  in  the  night  of  the  25th 
of  August,  the  array  suddenly  decamped,  and  returning, 
with  evident  marks  of  precipitation  and  alarm,  to  their 
ships,  left  the  interment  of  their  dead,  and  the  care  of 
their  wounded,  to  the  enemy  ;  whom  they  had  thus  in 
jured  and  insulted,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  civilized 
war. 

.  The  counterpart  of  the  scene  exhibited  by  the  Brit 
ish  army,  was  next  exhibited  by  tke  British  navy. 
Soon  after  the  midnight  flight  of  general  Rosa  from 
Washington,  a  squadron  of  British  ships  of  war  a&- 
cended  on  the  Potomac,  and  reached  the  town  of  Al 
exandria  on  the  27th  of  August,  1814.  The  magis 
trates,  presuming  that  the  general  destruction  of  the 
town  was  intended,  asked  on  what  terms  it  might  be 
saved.  The  naval  commander  declared,  that  the  only 
conditions  in  hrs  power  to  offer,  were  such  a&  required 
not  only  a  surrender  of  all  naval  and  ordnance  stores, 
(public  and  private)  but  of  all  the  shipping  ;  and  of  all 
merchandize  in  the  city,  as  well  as  such  as  had  been 
removed  since  the  19th  of  August."  The  conditions, 
the  re  for  e,  amounted  to  the  entire  plunder  of  Alexan- 


to*  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

dria,  an  unfortified  and  unresisting  town,  In  order  to 
saVe  the  buildings  from  destruction.  The  capitula 
tion  was  made  ;  and  the  enemy  bore  away  the  fruits 
of  his  predatory  enterprise,  in  triumph. 

But  even  while  this  narrative  is  passing  from  the 
press,  a  new  retaliatory  pretext  has  been  formed,  to 
cover  the  disgrace  of  the  scene,  which  was  transacted 
at  Washington.  In  the  address  of  the  governor  in 
chief  to  the  provincial  parliament  of  Canada,  on  the 
34th  of  January,  '1815,  it  is  asserted,  in  ambiguous 
language,  "that,  as  a  just  retribution,  the  proud  capi- 
tol  at  Washington,  has  experienced  a  similar  fate  to 
that  inflicted  by  an  American  force  on  the  seat  of  gov 
ernment  in  Upper  Canada."  The  town  of  York,  in  Up 
per  Canada,  was  taken  by  the  Amercan  army  under  the 
command  of  general  Dearborn,  on  the  27th  of  April, 
1&13,*  and  it  was  evacuated  on  the  succeeding  1st  of 
May  ;  although  it  was  again  visited  for  a  day,  by  an 
American  squadron,  under  the  command  of  commo 
dore  Chauacey,  on  the  4th  ol  August,  f  At  the  time  of 
the  capture,  the  enemy  on  his  retreat  set  fire  to  his 
magazine,  and  the  injury  produced  by  the  explosion 
was  great  and  extensive  ;  but  neither  then  or  on  the 
visit  of  commodore  Chauncey,  was  any  edifice,  which 
had  been  erected  for  civil  uses,  destroyed  by  the  au 
thority  of  the  military  or  naval  commander  ;  and  the 
destruation  of  such  edifices,  by  any  part  of  their  force, 
would  have  been  a  direct  violation  of  the  positive  or 
ders  which  they  had  issued.  On  both  oceassiens,  in 
deed,  the  public  stores  of  the  enemy  were  authorised  to 
be  seized,  and  his  public  store-houses  to  be  burnt ;  but 
it  is  known  that  private  persons,  houses,  and  property, 
were  left  uninjured.  If,  therefore,  sir  George  Prevost 
deems  such  acts  inflicted  on  «  the  seat  of  government 
in  Upper  Canada"  similar  to  the  acts,  which  were  per 
petrated  at  Washington,  he  has  yet  to  perform-  the 
task  of  tracing  the  features  of  similarity  ;  since,  at 

*  See  the  letters  from  general  Dearborn  to  the  secre 
tary  of  war,  dated  the  2f  th  and  18th  ©f  April,  1813. 

•(•Seethe  letter  from  commodore  Chauncey  to  the  sec 
retary  of  the  Dfcvy,  date*  the  4Uv  ef  August,  1-813. 


AMERICAN  EXP0SE.  105 

Washington  the  public  edifices  which  had  been  erected 
for  civil  uses,  were  alone  destroyed^  while  the  muni 
tions  of  war,  and  the  foundaries  of  cannon,  remained 
untouched. 

If,  however,  it  be  meant  to  affirm,  that  the  public  ed 
ifices,  occupied  by  the  legislature,  by  the  chief  magis 
trate,  by  the  courts  of  justice,  and  by  the  civil  func 
tionaries  of  the  province  of  Upper  Canada,  with  tke 
provincial  library,  were  destroyed  by  the  American 
force,  it  is  an  occurrence  which  has  never  before  been 
presented  to  the  view  of  the  American  government  by 
its  own  officers,  as  a  matter  of  information  ;  nor  by  any 
of  the  military  or  civil  authorities  of  Canada  as  mat 
ters  of  complaint ;  it  is  an  occurrence  which  no  Amer 
ican  commander  had  in  any  degree  authorised  or  ap 
proved  ;  and  it  is  an  occurrence  wkich  the  American 
government  would  have  censured  and  repaired  with 
equal  promptitude  and  liberality. 

But  a  tale  told  thus  out  of  date,  for  a  special  pur 
pose,  cannot  command  the  confidence  of  the  intelligent 
and  the  candid  auditor  ;  for,  even  if  the  fact  of  con 
flagration  be  true,  suspicion  must  attend  the  cause  for 
so  long  a  concealment,  with  motives  so  strong  for  an 
immediate  disclosure.  When  sir  George  Prevost,  in 
February,  1 8  1 4,  acknowledged,  that  the  measure  of  re 
taliation  was  full  and  complete,  for  all  the  preceding 
misconduct  imputed  to  the  American  troops,  was  he 
not  apprised  of  every  fact,  which  had  occurred  at  York, 
the  capital  of  Upper  Canada,  in  the  months  of  April 
and  August,  1&13  ?  Yet,  neither  then,  nor  at  any  ante 
cedent  period,  nor  until  the  24th  January,  1815,  was 
the  slightest  intimation  given  of  the  retaliatory  pretext, 
which  is  now  offered.  When  the  admirals  Warren 
and  Cochrane  were  employed  >n  pillaging  and  burning 
the  villages  on  the  shores  of  the  Chesapeake,  were  not 
all  the  retaliatory  pretexts  for  the  barbarous  warfare 
known  t®  those  commanders?  And  yet,  "  the  fate 'in 
flicted  by  an  American  force  on  the  seat  of  government 
in  Upper  Canada,"  was  never  suggested  in  justification 
or  excuse  ;  and,  finally,  when  the  expedient  was  form 
ed,  in  August,  1814,  for  the  destruction  of  the  public 
edifices  at  Washington,  was  not  the  «  similar  fat* 


J06  AMERICAN  EXPOSE. 

which  had  been  inflicted  by  an  American  force  on  the 
seat  of  government  in  Upper  Canada,"  known  to  ad 
miral  Cochrane,  as  well  as  to  sir  George  Prevost,  who 
called  upon  the  admiral  (it is,  alledged)  to  carry  into 
effect,  measures  of  retaliation,  against  the  inhabitants 
of  the  United.  States  ? — And  yet,  both  the  call  and  com 
pliance,  are  founded  (not  upon  the  destruction  of  the 
public  edifices  at  York,  but)  upon  the  wanton  destruc 
tion  committed  by  the  American  army  in  Upper  Can« 
ada,  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  province,  far  whom 
alone  reparation  was  demanded. 

An  obscurity,  then,  dwells  upon  the  fact  alleged  by 
sir  George  Prevost,  which  has  not  been  dissipated  by 
enquiry.  Whether  any  public  edifice  was  improper 
ly  destroyed  at  York,  or  at  what  period  the  injury 
was  done,  if  done  at  all,  and  by  what  hand  it  was  in 
flicted,  are  points  that  ought  to  have  been  stated,  when 
the  charge  was  made  ;  surely  it  is  enough,  on  the  part 
of  the  American  government  to  repeat,  that  the  fact  al- 
ledged  was  never  before  brought  to  its  knowledge,  for 
investigation,  disavowal,  or  reparation.  The  silence 
of  the  military  and  civil  officers  of  the  provincial  gov 
ernment  of  Canada,  indicates,  too,  a  sense  of  shame,  or 
conviction  of  the  injustice  of  the  present  reproach.  It 
is  known,  that  there  could  have  been  no  other  public 
edifice  for  civil  uses  destroyed  in  Upper  Canada,  than 
the  house  of  the  provincial  legislature,  a  building  of  so 
little  cost  and  ornament,  as  hardly  to  merit  considera 
tion  ;  and  certainly  affording  neither  parallel  nor  apel- 
f)gy,  for  the  conflagration  of  the  splendid  structures, 
which  adorned  the  metropolis  of  the  United  St?t£s. 

If,  however,  that  house  was  indeed  destroyed,  may 
it  not  have  been  an  accidental  consequence  of  the  con 
fusion,  in  which  the  explosion  of  the  magazine  involv 
ed  the  town  ?  Or,  perhaps  it  was"  hastily  perpetrated 
fey  some  of  the  enraged  troops  in  the  moment  of  anT 
guish,  for  the  loss  of  a  beloved  comrnaader,  and  their 
companions,  who  had  been  killed  by  that  explosion, 
kindled  as  it  was  by  a  defeated  enemy,  for  the  sanguin 
ary  and  unavailing  purpose  :  Or,  in  fine,  some  suffer 
ing  individual,  remembering  the  slaughter  of  his  breth 
ren  at  the  river  Raisin,  and  exasperated  by  the  specta- 


AMERICAN  EXPOSE.  107 

ek  of  a  human  scalp,  suspended  in  the  legislative 
chamber,  over  the  seat  of  the  speaker,  may,  in  thepar- 
oxism  of  his  vengeance,  have  applied,  unauthorised) 
and  unseen,  the  torch  of  vengeance  and  destruction. 

Many  other  flagrant  instances  of  British  violence 
pillage,  and  conflagration,   in  defiance  of    the  laws  of 
civilized  hostilities,  might  be  added  to  the  catalogue, 
which  has  been  exhibited;  the  enumeration  would  be 
superfluous,  and   it  is  time  to  close  so  painful  an  ex 
position  of  the  causes  and  character  of  the  war.     The 
exposition  had  become  necessary  to  repel   and  refute 
the  charges  of  the  prince  regent,  when,  by  his  declara 
tion  of  January,  18  J  3,   he  unjustly  states  the    United 
States  to  be  the  aggressors  in  the  war  ;  and  insulting 
ly  ascribes  the  conduct  of  the  American  government, 
to  the  influence  of  French  councils.     It  was   also  ne 
cessary  to  vindicate  the  course  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  war  ;  and  to  expose  to  the  view 
of  the  world  the  system  of  hostilities,  which  the  Brit 
ish  government  has  pursued.     Having  accomplished 
these  purposes,  the  American  government  recurs,with 
pleasure,  to  a  contemplation  of  its  early  and  continued 
efforts  for  the  restoration  of  peace.     Notwithstanding 
the  pressure  of  the  recent  wrongs,  and  the  unfriendly 
and  illiberal  disposition,  which  Great  Britain  has,  at  all 
times,    manifested  towards  them,  the    United  States 
have  never  indulged  sentiments  incompatible  with  the 
reciprocity  of  good  will,  and  an  intercourse  of  mutual 
benefit  and  advantage. — They  can  never  repine,  at  see 
ing  the  British  nation  great,  prosperous,  and   happy, 
safe  in  its  maritime  rights,  t  nd  powerful  in  its  means  of 
maintaining  them  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  they  can  ne 
ver  cease  to  desire,  that  the  councils  of  Great  Britain 
should  be  guided  by  justice,  and  a  respect  for  the  equal 
rights  of  ether  nations.  Her  maritime  power  may  extend 
to  all  the  legitimate  objects  of  her   sovereignty,   and 
her  commerce,  without  endangering  the  independence 
and  peace  of  every  other  government.     A  balance  of 
power,  in  this  respect,  is  as  necessary  on  the  oceaia,  as 
on  the  land  ;  and  the  control  that  it  gives  to  the  nations 
of  the  world,  over  the  actions  of  each  other,  is  as  salu 
tary  in  its  operation  to  the  individual  goyerntnent,which 


10*  AMERICAN  EXPOSE, 

feels  it,  as  to  all  the  governments,  by  which,  ©n  the 
jmst  principles  of  mutual  support  and  defence,  it  may 
be  exercised.  On  fair,  and  equal,  and  honorable  terms, 
therefore,  peace  is  at  the  choice  of  Great  Britain ;  but, 
if  she  still  determine  upon  war,  the  United  Statss,  re 
posing  upon  the  justness  of  their  cause  ;  upon  the  pa 
triotism  of  their  citizens  ;  upon  the  distinguished  valor 
of  their  land  and  naval  ferces  ;  and  above  all,  upon  the 
dispensations  of  a  beneficent  Providence  ;  are  ready  to 
maintain  the  contest,  for  the  preservation  of  the  nation 
al  independence,  vrith  the  same  energy  and  fortitude 
which  were  displayed  in  acquiring  it. 
Washington,  February,  10,  1815. 


THE  END. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


K*     «^~     f~*»  *    "T*??    %  1  S'X^P     f  i 

ES  r«r  §      ijf  tiLvVi  -Qc  v  ^ 

W^r  i  3  1970  3  8 

lftY31'65  :      i 

NOV13196581! 

r*kv*M*^ 

.Kftvi    75P3 

rX"       jvi 

.    - 

Honrss  »HM 

L.OAN  UfcHT 

'iOY  ?!7  19ft? 

HOV  ^ 

r> 

L 

53T                            '! 

cf    ^ 

2 

^  ^ 

T 

^ 

/ 

General  Library 

LD  2lA-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


University  of  California 
Berkeley 


M16881 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


